From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=QHQ5DPRm; spf=pass (domain: linaro.org, ip: 209.85.128.66, mailfrom: leif.lindholm@linaro.org) Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by groups.io with SMTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 05:19:44 -0700 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id s15so16949249wmj.3 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 05:19:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=J9vM2SyEryYBQp6wLQCBEESj1vMiVDOsM47FYpQlyzA=; b=QHQ5DPRmUZI1x7PV+IiIoKrBwIsewoZFj75O5cppBf1rHLlpXdcehzN4iwZmxu1C1c LrqDh0sX8lWi+qWi/Cz+I7hNmfNnhbzBlP6Xpt13XEGBiRtXYIUGxT4TbEgfH6Jv2VNn Ny5akgXpEZkftVmPDu/aeenOS8xQ405+cFF80L6g+7PkUgHnP8H6nvM2IkX1WXS9qMhp sB0C3oXinX9N8NepDeH962B/Yamdcdm4AVOGC7xJViqthqaR1dwEgPpjUe9dle5ugVFR gXkUTMVJnhZ9LFEKZ3ToLWQFAKia4wq2p6t1dc31bKUu1f/zvylcdQqk779UGgnAXebv vskw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=J9vM2SyEryYBQp6wLQCBEESj1vMiVDOsM47FYpQlyzA=; b=Gf4nFTnbCOivqt6CZJjhJQmfyYt9UKjVsmRaw65LrxXnGszCtonE9ZW+rV5F9cdbrM /dFSfwxe9lpRuLRNdcsT/5nXskA/EZxwCAADR2guWpWtMyZXeCsd5VeAZT/qVn8PR/nl FDnaWY+Jo9QEIifQAQLT7YeI6mQk6Ph/xRfF9RycQ6RRCDVh0ETiH9qzc4uiKzlb2A+7 i3spi1VEIvas65fYP8/mEhueLOa4zvQR5RVfDrLa4sZXRDN0FerI8Po29PAgIonoEJYY VLm6S4vyZBOvneCuKheZBNyMN2n4yadQPatwCXmNJSX2Z7vRPutiQtuBBRmZ9VOxCV8S g4lg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUFu9p8CT+aH6YZRFnEgIrztmvRvtCxSnV2WUAtodkHYo6pAo81 3GK3qNlmgH2Sg4iJQdYMpkpCbg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyu9Me77+ldtyXWkBa0QvRUKEPM0DITXuFGRaFf3h6RNkzfld9xv0dxFQRPeg0w4Eu4nmBCug== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c0d0:: with SMTP id s16mr38460048wmh.141.1563884382668; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 05:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u2sm37970601wmc.3.2019.07.23.05.19.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 05:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:19:40 +0100 From: "Leif Lindholm" To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com, Ard Biesheuvel , "Wang, Jian J" , "Ye, Ting" Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Arm, ArmPlatform, Crypto, Embedded: list internal headers in [Sources] Message-ID: <20190723121940.GH11541@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20190719164319.9070-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20190722103755.GA11541@bivouac.eciton.net> <591319a9-eceb-ab39-0ec0-ccd2530b0e58@redhat.com> <20190723090644.GD11541@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 > > 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