<html><head><style type="text/css"></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">Leaving off the full path name in the #include and using "-I" option to specify include path works fine, as should have been obvious to me.  Sorry for all the commotion.<br>Bob<br><div> </div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@normalesup.org><br>To: Tim Van Holder <tim.vanholder@anubex.com><br>Cc: gmp-bugs@swox.com; Robert Evans <bobsphysics@yahoo.com><br>Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:46:20 AM<br>Subject: Re: Simple C++ Compile Error<br><br> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tim Van Holder wrote:<br><br>>>> #include </home/bevans/gmp-4.2.3/include/gmpxx.h><br>[...]<br>> While Robert's code is unusual (especially the use of <> instead of ""<br>> when specifying a full path to a header), it's certainly valid C++.<br><br>But not a valid use of gmpxx. You can compare to other packages. For <br>instance, freetype or gtk typically require -I/usr/include/freetype2 or <br>-I/usr/include/gtk-2.0. These packages have many header files that include <br>each other, but still use the <> notation. I don't see why gmp should be <br>different.<br><br>> Would it not make sense for gmpxx.h to include gmp.h with '#include<br>> "gmp.h"'?<br>> That way, no matter how you include gmpxx.h, it will prefer the gmp.h<br>> that sits alongside it.<br><br>I don't like it (but I don't decide). However, having a test in gmpxx that <br>checks whether the version of gmp.h included matches and outputs a warning <br>(not an error, there can always be good reasons to do strange things) <br>otherwise would help diagnose this kind of issue.<br><br>-- <br>Marc Glisse<br></div></div></div><br> </body></html>