Re: [PATCH 0/6] tools/include: adjustments to the population of xen/

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 10.09.20 15:51, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/09/2020 13:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > While looking at what it would take to move around libelf/
> > in the hypervisor subtree, I've run into this rule, which I
> > think can do with a few improvements and some simplification.
> I realise this might be a controversial move, but can we *please*
> address this by removing our use of symlinking, rather than kicking the
> problem down the road.
>
> For header files in particular, there is no need to symlink at all.
> Some properly formed -I runes for the compiler will do the right thing,
> and avoid all intermediate regeneration issues.
This is true only if all headers in a directory are to be shared.
Otherwise you might end up with including a file with a name collision
which happens to be in a directory you now specify via -I

I'm not opposed to your proposal, but this should be accompanied by a
clean header directory structure (all or no headers in a directory meant
to be shared).


Juergen