On 09/05/2014 12:08 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Do, 2014-09-04 at 23:37 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > On 09/04/2014 07:47 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >>> > > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 00:43 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >>>>> > >> > Most statements are already depending on GCC_VERSION, maybe we can >>>>> > >> > just >>>>> > >> > unify all gcc specific headers to one, still trying to keep the >>>>> > >> > file >>>>> > >> > organized? ;) >>> > > Maybe something like: >>> > > >>> > > gnu development of gcc will be more frequent and the use of >>> > > compiler-gcc<major>.h likely will not be convenient anymore. >>> > > >>> > > Integrate the individual compiler-gcc<major>.h files into >>> > > compiler-gcc.h. >> > >> > Please no. We have a similar file we maintain in our team that's supposed >> > to >> > do something very similar for kernel versions. It goes all the way back to >> > 2.6.9 and it's a *horrible* mess. >> > >> > This is how compiler-gcc.h will end up looking in a while. > Something along these lines? We can make '4' a macro describing it > references the latest possible compiler-gccX.h file.
I agree, something along those lines would be great. We'd still have all this mess split into smaller headers and we won't be forced to add compiler-gccX.h until we actually need it. The problem it causes is that if you want to figure out what specific line of code in one of those headers affects your kernel you may need to browse through multiple headers (-gcc3.h ... -gccX.h) but I suspect that we won't have too many conflicting declarations, as Joe pointed out - they are mostly upward compatible. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
