Re: Linux 2.6.0-test6

[Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 09:16:22PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> How about a check_headers target that roughly works like this:
> 
> for (all header files in include/linux and include/asm) {
> 	echo "#include <$HEADER>" > header.c
> 	make header.o
> 	rm header.c header.o
> }
> 
> Did a quick test for linux/fs.h in -test5 and it compiled fine, but
> broke after removing some random #include.
> 
> Another thing, Sam, "make header.o" causes make to call itself
> indefinitely.  Had to "make somedir/header.o".  Not sure if you
> consider this to be a bug, your decision.

I have a bad feeling about this, so I'll make the following comments
up front before all the reports start rolling in.  It may be a good
idea to document this somewhere.  (Coding style?)

If a header has something like these:

struct my_headers_struct {
	struct task_struct *tsk;
};

void my_function(struct task_struct *tsk);

and gcc warns that "struct task_struct" has not been declared, please
don't think about adding another header.  Just declare the structure
in the header file which needs it like this:

struct task_struct;

and that will prevent the #include maze of 2.4, which resulted in
everything being rebuilt just because one header file was touched.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)	http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/
      Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
      maintainer of:  2.6 PCMCIA      - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
                      2.6 Serial core