On 30-Jan-2003 Benno Rice wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:57, David O'Brien wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:46:47PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>> > I would not introduce a <platform/foo.h>, but rather
>> > <machine/${variant}/foo.h>. The reason for this is that the
>> > /usr/include/platform directory is only needed on powerpc and mips,
>> > which seems to indicate that it should be under <machine>. Also,
>> > the use of machine/${variant} allows us to install the headers for
>> > all variants, which may improve cross-building.
>>
>> This is a very nice way of adding the complexity when it is needed, but
>> not getting in the way of those cases where it isn't needed.
>
> Except that it requires us to know which platform variant directory to
> use in each case. If this directory is then copied or symlinked to
> /usr/include/platform or /usr/include/machine/platform, I don't object
> but otherwise it'll lead to an ifdef nightmare in the machine includes.
Yeah, a platform symlink would make sense. I think /usr/include/platform
would make more sense since in the kernel you would have:
sys/foo/include (foo machine/ headers)
sys/foo/bar/include (bar platform/ headers, installed to /usr/include/machine/bar
with a /usr/include/platform symlink so that
#include <platform/foo.h> can easily work in both kernel
and userland)
--
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
