On 9 July 2010 20:14, Richard Purdie <rpur...@rpsys.net> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:36 +0800, Holger Freyther wrote: >> On 07/08/2010 01:39 PM, Graham Gower wrote: >> > This patch introduces a new command line parameter to gcc (at >> > Zecke's suggestion), -ibad, which may be used to specify >> > blacklisted include prefixes. E.g. >> > >> > g...@eye7:/tmp$ ~/oe2/tmp/cross/mipsel/bin/mipsel-angstrom-linux-gcc -c >> > test.c -ibad /usr/include -I /usr/include >> > CROSS COMPILE Badness: /usr/include in INCLUDEPATH: /usr/include >> >> nice! The only thing that is worrying is the question how we make sure >> these bad path's are enforced. >> >> E.g. a recipe not honoring our CPPFLAGS might silently pass this check >> (while before it was hardcoded into the compiler). My proposal would be >> to extend the sanity check and grep the compile log for gcc and -ibad >> and fail if gcc exists but -ibad does not occur?
I haven't tried this, but I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to put them into gcc's default spec file. That would fix the problem of breaking things for an external toolchain too. > > How about making this option an environmental variable rather than a > flag? I've seen that technique used to great effect for this exact > reason before... That would work too. -Graham _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
