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

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 07/23/19 11:06, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:56:23AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On 07/22/19 20:47, Michael D Kinney wrote:
>>> We could consider checking for these type of issues in
>>> the ECC tool instead of build and make it an error from
>>> ECC instead of a warning.
>>
>> I'm sorry, my reply to Leif was ambiguous (or worse).
>>
>> I meant that the issues underlying the specific warnings (emitted by the
>> feature from TianoCore#1804) were annoying -- the reports were valid,
>> and what "annoyed" me was that the INF files had not been in order (i.e.
>> that they had missed some internal header files).
> 
> Whereas I'm annoyed that we now have a manual process to match up with
> the automatic dependency generation.
> 
>> 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...)

> 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.)

Thanks
Laszlo