Re: [patch, 4.6/4.7] fix installation of plugin header files

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Matthias Klose wrote:

> On 06/20/2011 05:18 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > 
> >>  - PR45078; vxworks-dummy.h is included for cpu_type in arm,
> >>    i386, mips, sh and sparc but only installed when it's i386; copy it
> >>    manually anytime.
> > 
> > I don't think you should list particular config/ headers in PLUGIN_HEADERS 
> > in Makefile.in; provide a way for targets to specify their additions to 
> > this list in config.gcc instead.  Is the issue headers that are directly 
> > #included from tm.h headers (for whatever reason) rather than listed in 
> > tm_file?  (Some of those #includes may be avoidable, but the .def ones 
> > probably do need listing explicitly.)
> > 
> > The aim should be to get the extra files in tm_file_list, which is 
> > included in PLUGIN_HEADERS, so that they appear in $(TM_H) dependencies as 
> > well.
> 
> updated patch attached.

That doesn't sufficiently address the issues I pointed out.

* Listing arm-cores.def in Makefile.in is still wrong.

* If you add a header to tm_file (which needs a more detailed analysis of 
why including it there in the list of headers is safe for all targets 
affected) then you should also remove the #include directives that 
directly include it from other headers.

* There are other files included in tm.h headers that this patch is silent 
on.

I believe you don't need to do anything about headers listed in 
HeaderInclude in a .opt file that are also explicitly #included.  Apart 
from those, all #include directives in tm.h headers should be 
investigated.  If they can be replaced by entries in tm_file, by all means 
do so, but if not, then *don't* add them explicitly to Makefile.in, 
provide a way for them to get into tm_file_list in the Makefile without 
them getting into tm_include_list there (which may mean a new config.gcc 
variable).  This new mechanism is where arm-cores.def and other such 
headers should be listed - not directly in Makefile.in.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com