[Fwd: [ksh93-integration-discuss]ksh93-integrationpre-reviewround"two" (webrev 2007-05-14)]

[Peter Memishian]

 > "lint" seems to work without problems - a quick look in the build log
 > shows the following line:
 > -- snip --
 > /opt/SUNWspro/bin/lint -uaxm -DTEXT_DOMAIN=\"SUNW_OST_OSLIB\"
 > -D_TS_ERRNO  '-DHOSTTYPE="sol11.i386"'  -I. 
 > -I/home/test001/ksh93/on_build1/test1_x86/proto/root_i386/usr/include/ast 
 > '-DCONF_LIBSUFFIX=".so"'  '-DCONF_LIBPREFIX="lib"'  -D_BLD_dll 
 > -D_PACKAGE_ast  -D_BLD_DLL -errtags=yes -s -erroff=E_PTRDIFF_OVERFLOW
 > -erroff=E_ASSIGN_NARROW_CONV -U__PRAGMA_REDEFINE_EXTNAME -Xc99=%all
 > -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -D__EXTENSIONS__=1 -errsecurity=core
 > -erroff=E_SEC_CREAT_WITHOUT_EXCL -erroff=E_SEC_FORBIDDEN_WARN_CREAT
 > -erroff=E_ASSIGN_INT_TO_SMALL_INT -erroff=E_CAST_INT_CONST_TO_SMALL_INT
 > -erroff=E_CAST_INT_TO_SMALL_INT -erroff=E_CAST_TO_PTR_FROM_INT
 > -erroff=E_COMP_INT_WITH_LARGE_INT -erroff=E_INTEGRAL_CONST_EXP_EXPECTED
 > -erroff=E_PASS_INT_TO_SMALL_INT -erroff=E_PTR_CONV_LOSES_BITS -o dll
 > ../common/llib-ldll > lint.out 2>&1 
 > -- snip --
 > "-Xc99=%all -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -D__EXTENSIONS__=1" is correctly passed
 > to "lint" in this case...
 > 
 > What should I do in this case ? Keep the current design or find another
 > solution ?

I think it's OK as-is.

 > >  > > Do you really often navigate into "pics"?  Why?  In any case, I am against
 > >  > > special-purpose library-specific tweaks like this -- either the stuff
 > >  > > should find its way into lib/Makefile.*, or be yanked out.
 > >  >
 > >  > Well, I think seperate objdirs following the source layout is cleaner
 > >  > and IMO it scales better than the "few hundred files in one flat
 > >  > dir"-solution (e.g. 10 dirs with 10 subdirs containing 10 subdirs
 > >  > containing 10 files each is AFAIK faster to access&&handle than all
 > >  > files in one flat dir (however the filename cache will hide some of the
 > >  > performance bottlenecks)). As I said I had a patch for libc (AFAIK
 > >  > B37-based) and could write one to do the same tree-wide to get some
 > >  > things cleaned-up - if such a change is Ok...
 > > 
 > > I think such a change is fine as long as it's done in a uniform manner.
 > > What we want to avoid is "Makefile fiefdoms" where things are done
 > > differently, for all of the reasons we've discussed in the past.
 > 
 > Well, it's done uniformly for all AST libraries which use subdirs in the
 > sources (e.g. libdll is an exception because it is too small to have
 > subdirs in the sources).

"Uniformly for all AST libraries" isn't really uniform though, since
there's nothing inherently different about the AST libraries here -- quite
a few of our libraries consist of dozens to hundreds of source files.

--
meem