Re: Crosstool's sanitized headers

["Dan Kegel" <dank at kegel dot com>]

On 2/19/06, Trevor Harmon <trevor@vocaro.com> wrote:
> Crosstool supports "sanitized Linux headers". What exactly is a
> "sanitized" header?

It's a kernel header cleansed of any details not needed by glibc.
There have been many such sanitized header packages; the one
I use is at http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/
and seems to be popular.

> In what way are the original headers "dirty"?

The kernel internals they inadvertantly exposed caused
compilation errors.

> I was hoping to find an explanation of this in the crosstool docs or by
> searching Google, but all I can see is a changelog that the patch was
> applied.

I should fix that, thanks.

> Specifically, I'm wondering what is the purpose of specifying
> different versions for LINUX_DIR and LINUX_SANITIZED_HEADER_DIR. For
> example, gcc-3.4.4-glibc-2.3.3-hdrs-2.6.11.2.dat sets 2.6.8 for Linux
> and 2.6.11.2 for the headers. Isn't that a potential compatibility
> problem?

Nope.  Specifying them both just means that when you
build with all.sh and specify --test-linux,  the version of
the kernel that is built to test the compiler is given by LINUX_DIR.

> Also, in crosstool-0.38, many (all?) of the .dat files specify both
> LINUX_SANITIZED_HEADER_DIR and LINUX_DIR. However, crosstool issues a
> warning if both are specified and ignores LINUX_DIR (see line 43 of
> crosstool.sh). Is this a bug in the .dat files?

No, it's just a rough edge.
- Dan

--
Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.org