RE: [Boost-Users] boost::date_time::posix_time and Intel Compiler 7.0?
adutoit [mailto:adutoit@stonethree.com] wrote:
I know I said I will not return soon, but I finally realised that stupid Visual C++ is to blame for my original compilation error, not anyone from Boost or the Intel compiler writer team.
For some reason, the order in which you specify include paths (for crying out loud!) matters in Visual C++!!! Er, Visual C++ is not alone in this behaviour. The compilers I'm familiar with all behave that way - the directories are searched in the order they are specified. When a match is found, the search stops. The same logic applies when using LIB to find libraries, PATH to find executables, and so on. Why should INCLUDE behave differently?
Think about it - you have two different header files with the same name: the standard ones shipped with VC, and the StlPORT. How else would you expect the compiler to behave? Pick the last one it finds? Pick one at random? Spit out an error? -- Jim
adutoit [mailto:adutoit@stonethree.com] wrote:
I know I said I will not return soon, but I finally realised that stupid Visual C++ is to blame for my original compilation error, not anyone from Boost or the Intel compiler writer team.
For some reason, the order in which you specify include paths (for crying out loud!) matters in Visual C++!!! Er, Visual C++ is not alone in this behaviour. The compilers I'm familiar with all behave that way - the directories are searched in the order they are specified. When a match is found, the search stops. The same logic applies when using LIB to find libraries, PATH to find executables, and so on. Why should INCLUDE behave differently?
Think about it - you have two different header files with the same name:
Yep; as I was nagging about this to someone else, I actually thought about it and wondered how does it work again when I compile with GCC for instance. Then I realised it probably operates in the same way and that my statements regarding Visual C++ were unfounded and only served to expose my patchy understanding of compilers in general. Thanks for putting me right. Greetings, Andre. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim.Hyslop" <jim.hyslop@leitch.com> To: <Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:48 PM Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] boost::date_time::posix_time and Intel Compiler 7.0? the
standard ones shipped with VC, and the StlPORT. How else would you expect the compiler to behave? Pick the last one it finds? Pick one at random? Spit out an error?
-- Jim
Info: <http://www.boost.org> Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl> Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
participants (1)
-
adutoit -
Jim.Hyslop