Re: Rename config.h to pg_config.h?
Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 2001-08-13T18:59:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Another bug report complaining of include file name conflicts came in > just now. The only solution I can see is to rename config.h to > something more project-specific. Should we do this, or keep ignoring > the problem? I would vote for renaming it. I've run into the problem of getting the wrong config.h file. config.h is a fine name to use for a standalone tool. It's not particularly good for a library, and Postgres does have a library component. FYI, in BFD (the library used for gdb and the GNU binutils) we jump through hoops to to generate a bfd.h file which is properly configured but does not include a config.h file--see, e.g., BFD_ARCH_SIZE and BFD_HOST_64BIT_LONG in /usr/include/bfd.h on Linux. Ian