[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Headers without multiple inclusion guards
From: |
Laszlo Ersek |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Headers without multiple inclusion guards |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 18:18:38 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 |
On 06/05/19 16:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> We have a bunch of headers without multiple inclusion guards. Some are
>> clearly intentional, some look accidental. Too many for me to find out
>> by examining each of them, so I'm asking their maintainers.
>>
>> Why do I ask? I'd like to mark the intentional ones and fix the
>> accidental ones, so they don't flunk "make check-headers" from "[RFC v4
>> 0/7] Baby steps towards saner headers" just because they lack multiple
>> inclusion guards.
>>
>> Just in case: what's a multiple inclusion guard? It's
>>
>> #ifndef UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H
>> #define UNIQUE_GUARD_SYMBOL_H
>> ...
>> #endif
>>
>> with nothing but comments outside the conditional, so that the header
>> can safely be included more than once.
>
> Any opinions on using the less verbose syntax instead:
>
> #pragma once
>
> It is not portable C, but we explicitly only care about GCC or CLang,
> so portability isn't an issue for us.
I don't feel strongly about this particular question, so if folks prefer
"#pragma once", I won't complain. I'd just like to report that section 6
of "HACKING" appears the opposite of "we explicitly only care about GCC
or CLang".
Thanks,
Laszlo
>
>
>> Cryptography
>> M: Daniel P. Berrange <address@hidden>
>> crypto/ivgen-essiv.h
>> crypto/ivgen-plain.h
>> crypto/ivgen-plain64.h
>
> These have header guards present
>
>> tests/crypto-tls-psk-helpers.h
>> tests/crypto-tls-x509-helpers.h
>
> These should be fixed.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
Re: [Qemu-devel] Headers without multiple inclusion guards, Alistair Francis, 2019/06/05