On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 10:32 -0500, Christopher Friedt wrote:
> Hi Ned,
>
> I like the patch - there are probably many cases where a package does
> not cross compile properly when include paths are not fixed. In those
> cases, it would be necessary to patch the source on an
> ebuild-by-ebuild basis. This would eliminate the need to fix the files
> at an ebuild level with a relatively inexpensive check.
>
> Mike has a couple of good points too - unless it's necessary to use
> thee function from outside gcc or whatever library it ends up in, it
> may as well be marked static. Path vs name ? I think path. Regarding
> arbitrary non-standard include paths that could generate false
> positives, i have no comment.
>
> Regarding path normalization ( "//" => "/" ) - in my opinion, if gcc
> doesn't already do it, then forget about it - otherwise one would be
> obliged to fix it for the rest of gcc, no? Keep it short and simple.
>
> Depending on the level of community feedback you want, I could help
> test for a while, or you could just include it in an unstable ~ gcc
> version and see how the universe reacts to it :)
I'm all for these things. But to be honest time is limited and I've not
been having too much trouble simply using -I${ROOT}/usr/include. Every
so often a I'll need to add a non standard python include path. But it's
been easy enough to work around.
Anyway feel free to recode up a better patch to address the points you
and others have pointed out.
--
Ned Ludd <[email protected]>
Gentoo Linux
