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

[Óscar Fuentes]

Jan Djärv <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.

Yes, I read what you wrote. It seems that you are not trying to
understand what I say, though.

The fact that several builds share the same .elc files is, precisely, a
potential source of problems. If you can't see that, well, lucky you,
because then it is clear that you never experienced a problem caused by
a setup like that.

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

Corrupted in any sense? Is the byte compiler so robust that it never
miscompiled an .el file on 20 years?

>>> 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.

Are you suggesting that I'm making up the issue? Or maybe the issue is
irrelevant to you because it doesn't affect the tools you use?

> We are building Emacs right now out-of-tree.

No, you are building on a mixed setup, both out of tree and in-tree.

Anyways, if you are building out of tree, there is no problem with the
change because, as Miles explained, the angle brackets are used
precisely for supporting simultaneous out of tree and in-tree
builds. Removing the angle brackets is no problem for simultaneous out
of tree builds.

> 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.

Here we go again. No matter how small is the change one proposes,
somebody will extract terrible cosequences from it, or refuse to
evaluate the benefits dismissing it as useless, or both.

> As for the gcc thing, that is intentional, it is how it is
> supposed to work.

Yes, I know, I was caught there. AFAIK the algorithm used by GCC assumes
that angle brackets are for system headers.