[Fwd:[ksh93-integration-discuss]ksh93-integrationpre-reviewround"two" (webrev2007-05-14)]

[Roland Mainz]

Peter Memishian wrote:
>  > "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.

Ok...

>  > >  > > 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.

Mhhh... what should I do in this case ? AFAIK options are:
1. Leave the Makefiles as they are
2. Rewrite Makefiles to store all *.o files in a flat layout (e.g.
single directory) [Needs 5-8days to write, compile and test (largest
part is to watch my machines to compile the stuff... ;-( )]
3. Convert more libraries to the "put object files in subdirs"-solution
[e.g. you pick victim(s) and I'll switch them over... :-) ]
4. Any other ideas ?

Your choice...

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
 (;O/ \/ \O;)