Re: uSTL config.h clash

[John Dallaway <john at dallaway dot org dot uk>]

Hi Uwe

John Dallaway wrote:

> Uwe Kindler wrote:
> 
>> if I move the all uSTL headers except of ustl.h into an ustl
>> subdirectory, then I need to touch almost all include directives in the
>> ustl header and source files. I.e. in unew.c I would replace #include
>> "unew.h" by #include "ustl/unew.h". Did I understand this right?
> 
> I've just taken a quick look at the sources. It is indeed unfortunate
> that the #includes in the various header files do not specify the ustl/
> subdirectory like ustl.h does in the upstream sources. The quick fix
> here is to rename config.h to something like ustlcfg.h as you suggest.
> But I'm concerned that other conflicts may arise in the future.
> 
> Why does the original author make a distinction between include paths in
> ustl.h and in the other ustl header files?

To answer my own question, I now note that the original code uses a
ustl/ symlink.

I think the correct long-term approach for eCos is to move the header
files (other than ustl.h) into include/ustl/ and to modify the source
code accordingly. This will involve changes to many files but the
changes are trivial and can be applied using a simple substitution so
this should not impact future code imports much. If you agree with this
approach, I will make the changes.

John Dallaway