Re: [lwip-users] std includes

[Kieran Mansley]

On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:57 +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> Kieran Mansley <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The conflict between the use of the DEBUG value in Timmy's system could
> > work the other way in another setup, and so I agree in that sense that
> > changing the include order in lwIP would be futile.
> 
> Exactly, and by putting the std-lib includes at the top of a file, you
> cannot put OS includes before that. In a case contrary to Timmy's,
> you're then left with the only option of changing the include order in
> the lwIP files.
> 
> So to me, it seems like this would only solve Timmy's case (which is a
> good thing) but not the inverted case.

Yes, there isn't a simple solution that will solve both, so lets not
worry about solving either/both, but instead give lwIP the most sensible
include order.  To me this is system includes first, lwIP includes
second.  Is there a counter argument to doing the includes in that
order?

Kieran