From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25313 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2011 20:05:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 25303 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2011 20:05:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:05:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 9296 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2011 20:05:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Jun 2011 20:05:16 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QaCcs-0004HH-F6; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:05:14 +0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:08:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Matthias Klose cc: GCC Patches , Ramana Radhakrishnan Subject: Re: [patch, 4.6/4.7] fix installation of plugin header files In-Reply-To: <4E04EA1F.9000203@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: References: <4DFF4EB6.5010902@ubuntu.com> <4E04EA1F.9000203@ubuntu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01897.txt.bz2 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