Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:16:22 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |