Re: [Boost-Users] boost::date_time::posix_time and Intel Compiler 7.0?

From: adutoit (adutoit_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-22 01:53:38

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_at_[hidden]>
To: <Boost-Users_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] boost::date_time::posix_time and Intel Compiler
7.0?

> adutoit [mailto:adutoit_at_[hidden]] 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
>
>
>
> Info: <http://www.boost.org>
> Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl>
> Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>