lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.0-test6
On Sun, 28 September 2003 20:46:42 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:37:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > This, btw, is a pretty common thing. I wonder what we could do to make
> > sure that different architectures wouldn't have so different include file
> > structures. It's happened _way_ too often.
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Without too much thinking....
> Would it help to require all major[1] header files to include all the
> header files needed for them to compile?
> We could make that part of the build process or we could make that an
> optional step.
>
> Obviously that would not solve any issues in asm-$(ARCH).
>
> [1] There are ~600 files in include/linux - we could pick up the
> 50 most important and checkcompile them.

How about a check_headers target that roughly works like this:

for (all header files in include/linux and include/asm) {
echo "#include <$HEADER>" > header.c
make header.o
rm header.c header.o
}

Did a quick test for linux/fs.h in -test5 and it compiled fine, but
broke after removing some random #include.

Another thing, Sam, "make header.o" causes make to call itself
indefinitely. Had to "make somedir/header.o". Not sure if you
consider this to be a bug, your decision.

Jörn

--
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it.
Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it.
-- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.114 / U:6.696 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site