Re: bits/libc-tsd.h, bits/atomic.h and other non-installed headers?

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

Hi!

On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> > Should e.g. bits/libc-tsd.h just be renamed to libc-tsd.h? Or is there 
> > an convention for non-installed headers?
> 
> We don't have a convention.  For names that start with "libc-" it's pretty
> obvious that's not an installed header.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile to
> have another convention.  Perhaps <internal/foo.h> would be good.

Or, perhaps even the other way round: have installed headers in
installed/ subdirectories, for stating this explicitly, and anything else
being local?  Would that also help with more easily doing repository-wide
checking of the installed headers for namespace-cleanness and such
things?

> Off
> hand, I don't have a strong opinion about the actual name or even a strong
> opinion that we should rush to make these consistent.  But in the abstract
> it sounds like a good plan to have some rule whereby you can very easily
> tell what's an installed header and what's an internal header.

Agreed, having had my share of confusion.


GrÃÃe,
 Thomas

Attachment: pgppvoHI3tkPz.pgp
Description: PGP signature