So do you have solutions for the problem of headers with header guards but no
includes? I'm fine documenting the //X Macro header// problem as a known
shortcoming for now. I'd place a FIXME somewhere if there's an appropriate
spot. Also log a bug in JIRA.
How easy is it to detect if a header doesn't have header guards? You could
use that as a test to identify these //X Macro headers// which have the common
feature of being intended for multiple inclusion. Once you can identify such
inclusions you can disregard considering them as insertion points for new
includes.
================
Comment at: cpp11-migrate/Core/IncludeDirectives.h:58
@@ +57,3 @@
+private:
+ friend class IncludeDirectivesPPCallback;
+
----------------
Why do we even need friendship here? I know you have `InclusionDirective()` as
private but according to docs, this is actually a public member of the
clang::PPCallbacks class. You should probably also make it public. At this
point, friendship is no longer necessary and then you can put the callbacks
class into an anonymous namespace.
================
Comment at: unittests/cpp11-migrate/IncludeDirectivesTest.cpp:165-167
@@ +164,5 @@
+TEST(IncludeDirectivesTest, indirectIncludes) {
+ EXPECT_EQ(
+ "#include </virtual/foo.h>\n",
+ addIncludeInCode("/virtual/foo-inner.h", "#include </virtual/foo.h>\n"));
+
----------------
I'm still not convinced this EXPECT is testing what you think. I understand the
point of this test is to test indirect includes but this particular EXPECT is
not using `makeIndirectTestsAction()` so as far as I see, it's identical to the
avoidDuplicates() test. What am I missing?
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1287
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
