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 jos...@codesourcery.com
