Re: step forward on compilation
Emanuel Berg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.micro-kernel.l4.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Björn Döbel <[email protected]> writes: >> In effect, this is quite the opposite of the >> #include "task_scheduler.hh", and then the -I flag >> to the compiler. > > Was that a question? Actually, I'm only referring to how it looks on the surface. In the jungle beneath, the -I might just as well be exactly what happens... (?) Thanks for your information. Yes, that's what I said, I sent a mail with questions that didn't appear (I never saw it anywhere anyway), nor any answers for that matter, and the second mail (which you answered) was a followup on that (or should have been, had I found the first mail). So it is what I discovered since I wrote the first mail. That is, in the second mail, there are some questions answered, and some answers to be questioned... -- underground experts united: http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 _______________________________________________ l4-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/mailman/listinfo/l4-hackers