Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

04.08.2017, 21:20, "Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez" : > On 02/08/17 12:14, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: >>  FWIW, I use ENABLE_ALLINONE_BUILD=ON as a default build option in Qt >>  port and don't have any "terrible" development experience. Even when I >>  need to make a change in

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

On 02/08/17 12:14, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > FWIW, I use ENABLE_ALLINONE_BUILD=ON as a default build option in Qt > port and don't have any "terrible" development experience. Even when I > need to make a change in file that is not port-specific, usually just > one of AllInOne files needs to be

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

03.08.2017, 01:07, "Michael Catanzaro" : > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: >> FWIW, I use ENABLE_ALLINONE_BUILD=ON as a default build option in Qt port >> and don't have any "terrible" development experience. Even when I need

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: FWIW, I use ENABLE_ALLINONE_BUILD=ON as a default build option in Qt port and don't have any "terrible" development experience. Even when I need to make a change in file that is not port-specific, usually just one

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

02.08.2017, 01:49, "Michael Catanzaro" : > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Keith Miller wrote: >> P.S. There is also a reasonable chance that we will do some form of unified >> sources (compiling multiple cpp files at the same time). In that case

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

I’ve done some experiments with automagically building the unified source files. I have some data that I’ll share with the rest of WebKit when I have more information. But as a quick note, since my current approach to unified sources has the build system decide which cpp files to bundle

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

That’s right if we end up going with C++ modules. We will either need to produce a replacement for config.h or have all root headers (i.e. headers that don’t include any other WebKit headers) include config.h. This is because with C++ modules the rule is that you have to include what you use.

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > We originally adopted this “config.h” style to make WebKit buildable with > autotools. Since that has not been a consideration for years I would be > willing to abandon this and change how we do things. > > I don’t think we

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

On 08/01/2017 08:25 AM, Darin Adler wrote: >> On Jul 31, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: >>> I don’t think we should add lots of includes of “config.h”, though. I think >>> we can come

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

On 07/31/2017 11:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > >> On Jul 31, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: >>> I don’t think we should add lots of includes of “config.h”, though. I think >>>

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

> On Jul 31, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: >> I don’t think we should add lots of includes of “config.h”, though. I think >> we can come up with something better. > > Like what? We

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

> On Jul 31, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: >> I don’t think we should add lots of includes of “config.h”, though. I think >> we can come up with something better. > > Like what? The

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: I don’t think we should add lots of includes of “config.h”, though. I think we can come up with something better. Like what? The only alternative is to pass defines as preprocessor flags via -D. Our command lines are

Re: [webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

We originally adopted this “config.h” style to make WebKit buildable with autotools. Since that has not been a consideration for years I would be willing to abandon this and change how we do things. I don’t think we should add lots of includes of “config.h”, though. I think we can come up with

[webkit-dev] What's the rationale for not including config.h in any header files?

Hi all. The other day I noticed this in the Code Style Guidelines (https://webkit.org/code-style-guidelines/#include-statements): > Header files should never include config.h. Is there a rationale for it? config.h is a header file that pulls the compilation flags set in CMake, some macro