Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Mike Frysinger, > > In message <200911161703.46965.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: >>> Why would that be needed? Which problem are you trying to solve? >> like the subject very briefly says, 'for types'. if your source code >> includes >> flash.h before anything else, it'll fail to compile as flash.h uses types >> not >> declared implicitly by the compiler. > > I'm not sure if this is needed or even wanted. > > We don't attempt to make all header files self-sufficient, or do we? > Does Linux do this? > > When looking at man pages for system calls and library funtions it > seems this is not the case; also, I can find wise people argumenting > against self-sufficient headers (and others argumenting in their > favour). > > > My question: is there a definitive position somewhere (for example > for the Linux kernel; I'm sure we don't have one for U-Boot [yet]), > whether system headers should be self-sufficient?
I'd say they should be self-sufficient, in that the inclusion of the header itself should not fail if I haven't included some arbitrary other header. I don't see what the argument would be for not doing this. I don't know whether Linux has a specific policy on this, but I haven't noticed many problems in this regard, and when I did find one in the kernel a few years back I didn't get any argument when I submitted a patch to fix it. Which man pages are you looking at? -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot