Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?

[Jan Djärv]

2010-07-28 08:46, Óscar Fuentes skrev:
> Jan Djärv<address@hidden>  writes:

> > That doesn't happen.  elc-files are portable, and DOC should be also.
> > elc-files are in-tree even with an out-tree build, that is one of the
> > nice things, not having to do make bootstrap all the time.
>
> As explained above, if the .elc files are corrupted by a buggy Emacs or
> a buggy Emacs ends using healthy .elc files, by sharing the produced
> .elc/.el files among several builds you are hiding a bug. Mixing the
> products of different builds is never a good idea.

Didn't you read what I wrote?  Out-of-tree builds use the *SAME* elc files, 
those located in the tree.  Adding another out-of-tree build does not remake 
the elc-files.  That is one of the strong reasons to use out-of -tree builds 
for different configurations.

BTW, I used Emacs for more than 20 years and have yet to see a corrupted 
elc-file.

> [snip]
>
> > > So I agree that "don't do that" should be the right answer.
> >
> > Considering that<>  enables a real use-case and "" does not, and the
> > fact that using "" gives exactly no benefits what so ever, please
> > stick to<>.  It is not even less to type.  I can't imagine any reason
> > for switching now.
>
> Maybe is my hideous English, but as explained on my original message<>
> is giving me problems with some tool.

Some code analysis tools is too vague.  We are building Emacs right now 
out-of-tree.  If you are going to impose a change on that process again just 
after it was changed recently, you have to come up with something better than 
that.  As for the gcc thing, that is intentional, it is how it is supposed to 
work.

        Jan D.