On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 13:07 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/21/13 13:04, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > On 11/21/2013 02:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > >> On 11/21/13 11:15, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > >>> > >>> Is there anything in particular one needs to do for plugins? I thought I > >>> saw a patch somewhere that changed something in the Makefile, but don't > >>> know if that is actually required since I never did that for any of the > >>> others. Any plugin which used gimple.h probably needs a few more > >>> includes... > >> We need to make sure the header files that are needed by plugins > >> appear in Makefile.in::PLUGIN_HEADERS so that they get installed in a > >> place where plugins can find them. > >> > >> > > stupid question perhaps, but aren't most header files a potential > > plugin header? Why don't we just install them all... > I think that's basically what's happened in the past, we just installed > everything, or close to everything. > > One way to find out would be to look at the set of .h files from > gcc-4.8/gcc and look at what ultimately ends up in PLUGIN_HEADERS. I > bet they're pretty damn close :-) > > > > > No one has complained yet, but in theory any .h I split up over the > > past couple of months has the potential to be required... maintaining > > that macro in Makefile.in seems kinda lame now that we don't maintain > > the macros for building. I'm sure its rotted already. > I wouldn't expect much fallout until after we started putting release > candidates out there. That doesn't mean we should wait until then to > address the problem though ;-)
FWIW I can have a go at building/porting gcc-python-plugin against trunk sometime early in stage3 [1]; that one pokes at a lot of different things. Dave [1] like tomorrow :)
