[OE-core] [PATCH] gcc-cross: Clean up fixed-includes

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:55 AM <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 09:51 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 8:54 AM Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > We had interesting failures where building gcc-cross-powerpc with
> > > 5.0 kernel
> > > headers, then building eudev after moving to 5.2 headers failed.
> > >
> > > gcc-cross doesn't rebuild when linux-libc-headers changes due to
> > > its
> > > listing in SIGGEN_EXCLUDE_SAFE_RECIPE_DEPS. This shouldn't matter
> > > but
> > > fixincludes as adding asm-generic/socket.h to its filtered list
> > > which
> > > was then replacing the real header with an older version. This
> > > mismatch
> > > lead to build failures.
> > >
> > > We trust the Linux kernel headers to be ANSI safe so lets just
> > > clear out
> > > any headers and trust the originals to be correct.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>
> > > ---
> > >  meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross.inc | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross.inc
> > > b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross.inc
> > > index 6222c2e8c91..e417b898734 100644
> > > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross.inc
> > > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross.inc
> > > @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ do_install () {
> > >         # We use libiberty from binutils
> > >         find ${D}${exec_prefix}/lib -name libiberty.a | xargs rm -f
> > >         find ${D}${exec_prefix}/lib -name libiberty.h | xargs rm -f
> > > +
> > > +       find ${D}${libdir}/gcc/${TARGET_SYS}/${BINV}/include-fixed
> > > -type f -not -name "README" -not -name limits.h -not -name
> > > syslimits.h | xargs rm -f
> >
> > Whats different for limits.h and syslimits.h as compared to standard
> > headers from libc, Maybe we should just get that sorted as well while
> > here
>
> limits.h looks to be gcc specific additions/fallback. syslimits.h is
> just a passthrough. I decided to go with less risk in the patch and
> leave those as is but am open to more investigation.
>

fixed limits.h needs syslimits.h so either both go or both stay

> I suspect limits.h is there for pre glibc bootstrap?

thats right.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>