People have let me know that the attachment didn't make it through. Do patches get filtered out?
Please find it there: https://github.com/lionel-/r-svn/commit/e3de56798b1321a3fa8688a42bbb73d763b78024.patch I'm also happy to post it on the bugzilla if that makes sense. Best, Lionel On 3/16/23, Lionel Henry <lio...@posit.co> wrote: > Hello, > > I started using clangd to get better static analysis and code > refactoring tooling with the R sources (using eglot-mode in Emacs, it > just works once you've generated a `compile_commands.json` file with > `bear make all`). I noticed that the static analyser can't understand > several header files because these are not self-contained. So I went > through all .h files and inserted the missing includes, cf the > attached patch. > > Making the headers self-contained has consequences for the .c or .cpp > files that include them. In the case of C files, the only downside I > see is that it might cause users to accidentally rely on indirect > inclusion of standard headers, instead of directly including the > header to make the dependency explicit as would be good practice. > This doesn't seem like a big deal compared to the benefits of enabling > static analysis. > > However in the case of C++ that's more problematic. We don't want to > include the C headers because that would pollute the global namespace > and users might prefer to import the missing symbols (`size_t` and > `FILE`) selectively. Also that wouldn't help static analysis within > the header files since the analysers use the C path. So I have guarded > inclusion of standard C headers behing a `__cplusplus` check. > > If that makes sense, would R core consider applying the attached patch > to the R sources? > > Best, > Lionel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
