Hi Jeroen, On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Jeroen Hofstee <dasub...@myspectrum.nl> wrote: > Dear Vasili, > > On ma, 2014-05-19 at 12:45 +0300, Vasili Galka wrote: > [...] > >> 2. I see a reoccurring pattern of some headers being used from the host, >> causing mismatches and arising build errors. Then some way is sought >> to include headers from U-Boot tree prior to them which solves the >> problem. This happens for both Linux and Cygwin. > > you can add FreeBSD to the list as well, see [1]
Thanks! This supports my point that we have a reoccurring problem here that requires a more general solution. >> This pattern is a >> result of the original decision from 2004 to prioritize the host >> include paths over the paths from U-Boot tree. > > any reference? This decision is a part of the above mentioned commit: e1a3f6b (July 2004) I don't know how much the original committer was aware of its long term implications. >> I see this happening >> again and again with different headers in the future. So here comes >> the question, is it really the right thing prioritize the include >> paths this way? Why do host paths MUST come first? >> I'll try reverting this locally and looking what breaks and what >> alternative solutions exist. > > I have no idea why it is the way it is, but keep in mind that e.g. stdio > headers in u-boot is quite something different then stdio for the target > userland. Sure. I'll keep it in mind while I'm designing a solution here. I'm afraid there is no easy way to fix it though. > Regards, > Jeroen > > [1] http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-May/179301.html > Best, Vasili _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
