27/01/2021 18:33, Bruce Richardson:
> For some libraries, there may be some header files which are not for direct
> inclusion, but rather are to be included via other header files. To allow
> later checking of these files for missing includes, we separate out the
> indirect include files from the direct ones.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
[...]
> + When ``check_includes`` build option is set to ``true``, each header
> file
> + has additional checks performed on it, for example to ensure that it is
> + not missing any include statements for dependent headers.
> + For header files which are public, but only included indirectly in
> + applications, these checks can be skipped by using the
> ``headers_no_chkincs``
> + variable rather than ``headers``.
> +
> +headers_no_chkincs
> + **Default Value = []**.
> + As with ``headers`` option above, except that the files are not checked
> + for all needed include files as part of a DPDK build when
> + ``check_includes`` is set to ``true``.
If all such headers are included directly, I would prefer naming this group
"indirect_headers" because maybe we will want to do other kind of processing
on indirect headers.
[...]
> --- a/meson_options.txt
> +++ b/meson_options.txt
> @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
> # Please keep these options sorted alphabetically.
>
> +option('check_includes', type: 'boolean', value: false,
> + description: 'build "chkincs" to verify each header file can compile
> alone')
This should in the patch introducing the check?
