On 18 Apr 2001, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:

> bjh21@netbsd.org (Ben Harris) writes:
> > Clearly (to me), what's needed is for builds of the same MACHINE_ARCH to
> > be able to share objdirs.  Clearly, also, this won't always be
> > appropriate.
>
> Actually, in fact, in a bug-free(*) environment, it _will_ always be
> appropriate.

Yeah, but we're a long way from there at the moment.

> Given that arm32 is currently being split up, perhaps it makes sense
> to make it the first guinea pig for:
>
> 	* install $(MACHINE_ARCH) includes as /usr/include/machine
> 	* install all of the $(MACHINE) variants in /usr/include
> 	* for user programs which have /usr/include/$(MACHINE)
> 	  dependencies, make them code for that explicitly.

I'd have no objection to that.  How would this work for kernel compiles,
though?  Would they stay the same as they are now (so <machine/foo.h>
would get <${MACHINE}/foo.h> in the kernel and <${MACHINE_ARCH}/foo.h> in
userland)?

> Actually, the more that I think about it, the more
> /usr/include/machine/$(MACHINE) makes sense to me, rather than totally
> littering /usr/include with $(MACHINE)-named subdirs...

Heh.  I was looking at the ARMLinux Web pages today.  They have the
equivalent of 67 different MACHINEs.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>