GNU bug report logs -
#54780
[PATCH] gnu: lttng-ust: Fix dependencies.
Previous Next
Full log
Message #53 received at 54780 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Olivier Dion schreef op za 09-04-2022 om 10:40 [-0400]:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2022, Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> wrote:
> > Maxime Devos schreef op za 09-04-2022 om 11:11 [+0200]:
> > (define (excluded-input? input)
> > (directory-exists? (string-append store-item
> > "/include/linux"))))))
> [...]
> I assume that for glibc that's okay because the toolchain was built with
> '--with-native-system-header-dir=DIRNAME' or something like that.
Some remarks:
* Let 'foo' be a program depending on the C library 'bar' whose
headers include some headers from 'linux-libre-headers' and
'glibc'.
* Almost every C program includes some headers of glibc anyway,
so to compile the C program 'foo', you would need to have a glibc
in the environment anyway, so absoluting the references to glibc
headers doesn't bring much here.
* Even then, as you say, the toolchain is compiled with something
like that.
> I'm not sure if that's okay. What if the package require kernel's
> headers? Would this works if testing a custom kernel?
* Looking at the existence of $GUIX_ENVIRONMENT/include/linux when
doing "guix shell -D hello --pure", it looks like (a slightly
old version of) linux-libre-headers is included by default in the
build environment, so the package will have some kernel headers
automatically.
* Suppose that 'linux-libre-headers' was not excluded.
Suppose that 'bar' depends on 'linux-libre-headers', and hence some
inclusions were absolutised. Now suppose that 'foo' requires a
_newer_ linux-libre-headers, say linux-libre-headers <at> 5.15 to
utilise some fancy new thing in Linux.
Suppose the source code is something like:
foo.c:
#include <bar.h>
#include <linux/stuff.h> --> absolutised to </...new-linux.../linux/stuff.h>
bar.h:
[standard include guard]
#include <linux/stuff.h> ---> absolutised to </...old-linux.../linux/stuff.h>
[standard include guard]
linux/stuff.h
[standard include guard]
[stuff depending on the linux-libre-headers version]
[standard include guard]
Then, what would happen when 'foo.c', is that at first,
the C compiler loads <bar.h>. It sees that old-linux/stuff.h
and loads it, including the include guard. The next thing it
sees is #include <linux/stuff.h>. But then the compiler
(mis)remembers, due to the include guard, that it included this
header already, so it will not include the _new_ <linux/stuff.h>
As such, foo.c would end up with the _old_ <linux/stuff.h>, even though
it needed the new stuff (new structs or such). By not absolutising the
<linux/...>, the compiler will just look for <linux/...> in C_INCLUDE_PATH,
and find the linux-libre-headers from lttng-ust's inputs.
So I'm a bit hesitant to including linux-libre-headers.
Greetings,
Maxime.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 343 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.