Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Arm, ArmPlatform, Crypto, Embedded: list internal headers in [Sources]

["Leif Lindholm" <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> I wasn't annoyed at the feature itself -- if it helps developers catch
> >> unlisted headers as soon as incomplete INF files are introduced, then
> >> it's not a bad feature IMO.
> > 
> > I agree that the optional nature of whether to list local .h files or
> > not in the .inf was suboptimal.
> 
> Hmm, has that ever been officially optional?
> 
> (The INF spec chapter at
> <https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-inf-specification/content/2_inf_overview/25_[sources]_section.html>
> doesn't seem to mention header files at all. Thus, I can imagine both
> "mandatory to list headers" by omission, and "optional to list headers"
> by omission...)

Yeah, indeed.

> > I am just not pleased with the issue
> > bringing this to the fore is caused by the new caching feature using a
> > different mechanism for tracking header file dependencies than the
> > primary build process.
> 
> Ugh... that's a lot of statements compressed into a single sentence. Can
> you please break it down for me? (Yes, I remember the mailing list
> reference you posted earlier, that discussion was too divergent for me.)

The inclusion of .h files in .inf is not necessary for determining
build-time dependencies on the Makefile level.

Thus, the warnings come out of a different and unrelated level of the
build system, related to the recent build cache features. Which means
we're checking header file build dependencies through two different
mechanisms at two different points of the build.

Or I have fundamentally misunderstood what is going on. Which is also
possible. In which case we're maintaining our own header file
dependency tracking infrastructure, despite us in the end relying on
generating Makefiles. Which also feels less than ideal.

/
    Leif