On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:01, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> So it is okay to include headers from the source tree other than from
> under $PETSC_DIR/include?
> I thought the subject of this thread expressly banned that.
>
> That is a style decision that is up to Barry and not something I was trying
> to address in this latest patch.
>
> Currently, most things uses <../src/path/to/localinclude.h> but there are a
> handful of exceptions. I actually prefer using the "localinclude.h" instead
> of <../src/path/to/localinclude.h> because the former is easier to relocate
> and recompile (perhaps with a prefix-install where $PETSC_DIR/src is no
> longer around). In other words, using "localinclude.h" makes stuff in
> src/pkg/impls/xxx/ appear more like a standalone plugin which I think is a
> good thing.
For files like aij.h if you use the localinclude.h paradigm then in aij.c
you would have #include "aij.h" but in mpiaij.h you would have #include
<./src/mat/impls/aij/seq/aij.h> I don't like the fact that in different files
the sameinclude is referenced in a different way. Now one could argue that
private includes used ONLY locally use the "localinclude.h" model and private
includes used more than locally use the <../src/path/to/localinclude.h> but
why? Better the simplicity of always using the <../src/path/to/localinclude.h>
model.
Barry
>
> This email thread is pretty old now, I think there was some misunderstanding
> of whether the compiler's $PWD affected header resolution (it doesn't) and
> recall some possible IDE issues but don't know if they were resolved.
