On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:02:21AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> There are rules and schemes about how to create guard macro.
>
> Should it be prefixed by underscore?
> Should it be prefixed by two underscores?
> Should it be full path uppercased or just last path component?
> Should the guard
From: Alexey Dobriyan
> Sent: 26 February 2021 23:02
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 01:53:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:17 PM Alexey Dobriyan
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to sent treewide "#pragma once" conversion:
> >
> > Are there *any* advantages to it?
> >
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 01:53:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:17 PM Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> > I want to sent treewide "#pragma once" conversion:
>
> Are there *any* advantages to it?
>
> It's non-standard,
It is effectively standard:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:17 PM Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> I want to sent treewide "#pragma once" conversion:
Are there *any* advantages to it?
It's non-standard, and the historical argument for it ("it can reduce
compile times because the preprocessor doesn't open the file twice" is
pure and
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> > the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
> > and the latest Sparse all
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
> and the latest Sparse all support either method just fine. (I added
> support to Sparse myself.)
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
and the latest Sparse all support either method just fine. (I added
support to
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
and the latest
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> [CCing build-system folks and others likely to know about potential
> >> issues.]
> >>
> >> Does anyone
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:09:11AM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Furthermore some userspace may rely on doing #define XXX to avoid
> > including a specific kernel header (yes, it's ugly).
>
> This pattern is also sometimes used:
> $ head -6
On 2014-01-07 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Furthermore some userspace may rely on doing #define XXX to avoid
> including a specific kernel header (yes, it's ugly).
This pattern is also sometimes used:
$ head -6 include/linux/spinlock_up.h
#ifndef __LINUX_SPINLOCK_UP_H
#define
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> [CCing build-system folks and others likely to know about potential
>> issues.]
>>
>> Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
>> the usual
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
[CCing build-system folks and others likely to know about potential
issues.]
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual
On 2014-01-07 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Furthermore some userspace may rely on doing #define XXX to avoid
including a specific kernel header (yes, it's ugly).
This pattern is also sometimes used:
$ head -6 include/linux/spinlock_up.h
#ifndef __LINUX_SPINLOCK_UP_H
#define
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:09:11AM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
On 2014-01-07 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Furthermore some userspace may rely on doing #define XXX to avoid
including a specific kernel header (yes, it's ugly).
This pattern is also sometimes used:
$ head -6
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
[CCing build-system folks and others likely to know about potential
issues.]
Does
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [CCing build-system folks and others likely to know about potential
> issues.]
>
> Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
> and
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:33:49PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> > the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
> > and the
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
> and the latest Sparse all support either method just fine. (I added
> support to Sparse
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:00:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:47:07 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> > the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard?
>
> Sounds OK to me. gcc has supported
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:47:07 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard?
Sounds OK to me. gcc has supported this for quite a long time, yes? I
wonder if ICC supports it.
(I haven't
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:47:07 -0800 Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard?
Sounds OK to me. gcc has supported this for quite a long time, yes? I
wonder if ICC supports
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:00:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:47:07 -0800 Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard?
Sounds OK to me. gcc has
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
and the latest Sparse all support either method just fine. (I added
support to Sparse
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:33:49PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
and the latest Sparse
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
[CCing build-system folks and others likely to know about potential
issues.]
Does anyone have any objection to the use of #pragma once instead of
the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
and the
26 matches
Mail list logo
