Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
> 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. > > I append the alphabetical list of headers without multiple inclusion > guards (as reported by scripts/clean-header-guards -nv), followed by the > same list sorted into maintainer buckets. If you're cc'ed, please find > your bucket(s), and tell me which headers intentionally lack guards. > > > = Headers without inclusion guards = <snip> > include/exec/cpu_ldst_template.h > include/exec/cpu_ldst_useronly_template.h > include/exec/memory_ldst.inc.h > include/exec/memory_ldst_cached.inc.h > include/exec/memory_ldst_phys.inc.h These are all included multiple times with different #define's to expand out our various helpers. Eventually I hope to make them go away but for now they are fine. -- Alex Bennée
