Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
captacha

Header Guards

This topic is 2170 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Advertisement
Even if #pragma once gets more and more supported and works well I am doing both types of guards.
First #pragma once and after that the pre-processor guards with #ifndef/#define/#endif. This way the probably faster solution with the pragma tries first and if it fails the old-style catches the double inclusion.

As I had to decide what way is the best it has been reported that #pragma once may fail if the same file has been opened via different pathes, with a crosslink somewhere. This should now be fixed for most of the compilers. But who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use "#pragma once" and I'm fine with it... but I think there are no really big differences.
But "'#pragma" is easier... Only one line without additional identifiers like "COLOR_H". It is more comfortable so I use it.
If you like them, use it...

[font=courier new,courier,monospace]pragma once[/font] is supported by all C++ compilers these days.[/quote]
Yap, this is really true :)

You do not have modern compilers in all environments e.g. embedded systems.[/quote]
True, too :( But when you develop an application or library for an embedded system you often only use one specific compiler for one architecture (if it is not a general library of course)... And often someone from outdoor don't recompile the code...

In my opinion: Use it when you like it. The compiler will tell his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have modern compilers in all environments e.g. embedded systems.

Those compilers don't usually support the whole language either, and that doesn't mean that the features of the language they don't support should be avoided. I think using `#pragma once' should be fine these days. If you are programming for an embedded system, you need to be aware of several things you can't do, and this would be one of them.

Also, I got the impression that people tend to use gcc on pretty much every platform these days. But perhaps I am mistaken. Do you have an example of an embedded system for which people don't use gcc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I got the impression that people tend to use gcc on pretty much every platform these days. But perhaps I am mistaken. Do you have an example of an embedded system for which people don't use gcc?


I am working in the automotive business, and they have a lot of embedded systems these days. Not that I have seen more than a couple of them, but none had GCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!