Re: [coreboot] Broken include paths

[Myles Watson]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > Just use the path
> > >
> > > I think this is *by far* the cleanest approach!
> >
> > I agree that it looks the best.  I'm worried that it introduces
> > ambiguity.
> >
> > #include <path/file.h>
> >
> > Could look in src/path/file.h or src/include/path/file.h and others
> >
> > Is that what we want?  Should we remove -I$(src) from the command line
> > in the long term?

It won't be, but I think it should only be used for including .c files
for romcc.
> I'm not sure that I feel good about .h files outside include/ being
> referenced from other parts of the code. They should probably be
> moved to include/ if they are needed in more than one place..

So I guess option 1 is the best.  It makes it obvious (and ugly) when
that rule is ignored.
> > from src/arch/i386/Makefile.bootblock.inc:
> >
> > $(CC) -MMD -x assembler-with-cpp -DASSEMBLY -E -I$(src)/include
> > -I$(src)/arch/i386/include -I$(obj) -I$(obj)/bootblock -include
> > $(obj)/config.h -I. -I$(src) $< -o $@

I forgot about all of our included .c files.  That's the reason for -I$(src).
> And again, why are there include files in
> src/arch/i386/include instead of include/arch-i386 or something?

Linux does it that way.  It keeps all of the architecture-specific
code and includes under arch/

include_path.diff: fix the ones that are broken for me.
include_path2.diff: fix the ones that look identical but work anyway.
include_path3.diff: fix <../path/file.h> to be "../../../path/file.h"
to make it obvious that they're not in src/include

Abuild tested.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles