On 4 October 2015 at 14:00, Amadeusz Sławiński <am...@asmblr.net> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:27:37 +0100 > Kieran Bingham <kieranbing...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3 October 2015 at 23:59, Kieran Bingham <kieranbing...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Whilst trying to build screen, I attempted a build the master branch >> > in a sub-directory (src/build) to allow clean source tree. >> > >> > This failed, and it would appear to result from commit >> > 144836c3bb020405bf029d0d5a85c84aa74662d9 when the -I flags were >> > removed. >> > >> > As yet, I can not see why these flags were removed, and perhaps >> > there is a better way to fix out of tree build, or indeed >> > perhaps I am simply doing something else wrong (Does this work for >> > anyone else?) >> > >> > Otherwise, the following patch fixes things. If this is appropriate, >> > please apply >> > >> > Tested for both in-tree and out-of-tree build >> >> Nope: This breaks header inclusion for the system headers. >> In particular (first one I've hit so far) - the local pty.h header >> ends up overridding the system one >> and hence it ends up with out a declaration of openpty() >> >> I'll try to find a better fix. >> > > Yeah, if I recall correctly that was the reason why I removed "-I.", > because of conflicting header names. Maybe just rename headers to > screen_pty.h etc. Other which I think may be conflicting are sched.h and > tty.h, so they would be screen_sched.h, screen_tty.h. It's bit ugly but > hard to get conflicting names then. Although if I started prefixing > headers, I would just prefix them all for consistency... on the other > site it's useful to have headers with same names as .c files.
Indeed - I'm afraid I'm on the side of preferring headers to have the same name as the .c Which means I can't take the easy rename option... I'm working through some compiler warnings at the moment, and then I'll come back to the build :) > > Definitely something to spend some time thinking on. /me thinks .... :D > > Amadeusz > Kieran
