Well, in that case I think we can't really do much about this. So, I
guess this proposal is canned.
I guess we could normalize how we include our own headers, but yes, it
does make the proposal quiet a bit harder.
Ehsan
Cheers,
Rafael
___
dev-
On 2012-10-30 2:23 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
It's not a problem of include paths being absolute or not, it's a
problem of files of identical content but with different inode being
included. A typical case would be:
Foo.cpp:
#include "Bar.h"
#include "mozilla/Foo.h"
Bar.h:
#include "Foo.h"
with Fo
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:11:04PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On 10/29/12 5:52 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote >>wrote:
> >
> >>"#pragma once does have one drawback (other than being non-standard)
> >>and that is if you have the same file in
On 10/29/12 7:17 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2012-10-29 9:11 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 10/29/12 5:52 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
"#pragma once does have one drawback (other than being non-standard)
and that is if you have the sa
On 2012-10-29 9:11 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 10/29/12 5:52 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
"#pragma once does have one drawback (other than being non-standard)
and that is if you have the same file in different locations (we have
thi
On 10/29/12 5:52 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
"#pragma once does have one drawback (other than being non-standard)
and that is if you have the same file in different locations (we have
this because our build system copies files aroun
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> "#pragma once does have one drawback (other than being non-standard)
> and that is if you have the same file in different locations (we have
> this because our build system copies files around) then the compiler
> will think these are
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I'd like to switch our coding style to use #pragma once instead of #include
> guards.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/787533/is-pragma-once-a-safe-include-guard/1946730#1946730
says:
"#pragma once does have one drawback (other than being
On 2012-10-29 7:56 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
Not a concern, but the obvious question is: Do you have any idea how
this affects compile times?
It probably won't have any meaningful improvements, since all decent
compilers already seem to special case #include guards.
Ehsan
Not a concern, but the obvious question is: Do you have any idea how
this affects compile times?
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I'd like to switch our coding style to use #pragma once instead of #include
> guards. #pragma once is supported on all compilers than can build
I'd like to switch our coding style to use #pragma once instead of #include
guards. #pragma once is supported on all compilers than can build our
source code, it is more concise, and it avoids possible name clashes in
#include guards (or adopting silly conventions for avoiding them), and it
can be
11 matches
Mail list logo
