On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> 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...
>
>  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.

That's true. It's essentially impossible to know what plugins will
need. The easy way is the brute-force approach of adding every header
that gets factored out of the original. I chose not to do this in the
tree.h refactoring because it exposes too much unnecessarily. I
exposed as much as was needed to get the plugins in the testsuite.

I think plugins authors are going to have to work closely with us as
we refactor headers. At some point, it will make sense to offer a
better set of headers for them to use.


Diego.

Reply via email to