[Buildroot] [PATCH] build/advanced: add option to check for use of cdefs.h
Arnout Vandecappelle
arnout at mind.be
Sun Dec 4 20:33:10 UTC 2016
On 04-12-16 13:52, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 11:59:37 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>> We want to catch programs that directly include sys/cdefs.h so that
>> we can fix them not to. So, we want to instrument sys/cdefs.h to emit
>> a warning when it is included.
>
> Thanks for working on this. However, I am still not convinced that we
> want to merge such an additional complexity (one new Config.in choice
> with three sub-options, two additional Config.in options), a cdefs.h
> wrapper for glibc/uclibc, etc.
>
> Do we really care about upstream packages using sys/cdefs.h? Is it
> really the most important battle to fight against upstream projects
> using sys/cdefs.h?
>
> If we start having instrumentation in Buildroot to detect such very
> specific "standard violation", then where do we stop? There's plenty of
> upstream projects doing bogus things all over the place.
>
> I believe the paranoid checks for bogus -I/-L flags are fine because
> they really potentially break cross-compilation. But this cdefs.h
> mis-use doesn't break anything, now that we have the cdefs.h
> replacement for musl.
>
> Peter, Arnout, what do you think?
I agree with Thomas. It's not our responsibility to fix packages, just to
cross-compile them.
Regards,
Arnout
--
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF
More information about the buildroot
mailing list