On 03/06/11 16:17, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/03/2011 09:06 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 03/06/11 15:52, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> Nice. Thanks! >>> I haven't tried it yet. How long does it take to run? >>> Sounds like a good candidate to be run as a syntax-check rule. >> >> It's awkward (relies on a llvm/clang source tree for example) >> and currently requires human interpretation. >> It basically takes as long as clang-analyzer does. >> Not a candidate for automation at present. > > In other words, our existing sc_prohibit_XXX_without_use rules are > faster at doing the job, once we take the time to write the rules for > each header. > > Are any of the headers you cleaned up in your pass worth porting into > gnulib's maint.mk as new sc_prohibit_XXX_without_use rules?
Yes good point. I was essentially doing this grepping to confirm the redundancy anyway. I'll look at update those rules later in the weekend. cheers, Pádraig.
