On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> We have a bunch of headers without multiple inclusion guards. Some are
> >> clearly intentional, some look accidental.
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:13 AM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> 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
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 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
On 06/05/19 18:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 06:18:38PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 06/05/19 16:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
We have a bunch of headers without multiple inclusion guards.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 06:18:38PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 06/05/19 16:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> We have a bunch of headers without multiple inclusion guards. Some are
> >> clearly intentional, some look
On 06/05/19 16:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 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
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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?
On 06/03/19 16:24, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 6/3/19 2:59 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>
>>> Hi Markus,
>>>
>>> (sorry about the late reply, I've been away.)
>>>
>>> On 05/28/19 20:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>
EDK2 Firmware
M: Laszlo Ersek
M:
On 6/3/19 2:59 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> Hi Markus,
>>
>> (sorry about the late reply, I've been away.)
>>
>> On 05/28/19 20:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>>> EDK2 Firmware
>>> M: Laszlo Ersek
>>> M: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
>>>
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> Hi Markus,
>
> (sorry about the late reply, I've been away.)
>
> On 05/28/19 20:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> EDK2 Firmware
>> M: Laszlo Ersek
>> M: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
>> tests/uefi-test-tools/UefiTestToolsPkg/Include/Guid/BiosTablesTest.h
>
> This header file
On 05/29/19 16:10, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
>
>> On 5/28/19 8:12 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> 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
Hi Markus,
(sorry about the late reply, I've been away.)
On 05/28/19 20:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> EDK2 Firmware
> M: Laszlo Ersek
> M: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
> tests/uefi-test-tools/UefiTestToolsPkg/Include/Guid/BiosTablesTest.h
This header file does have a multiple inclusion guard:
>
>
> hw/net/e1000e_core.h
> hw/net/e1000x_common.h
> hw/net/vmxnet3_defs.h
Unintentional.
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 13:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> Peter Maydell writes:
> > fpu/softfloat-specialize.h is a bit odd as it's intended to be included
> > exactly once, by fpu/softfloat.c. Guards wouldn't hurt, I think, but it
> > might be cleanest to rename it to
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 5/28/19 8:12 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 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.
>>
On 5/28/19 8:12 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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
On 5/29/19 2:51 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Max Filippov writes:
>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:12 AM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> target/xtensa/helper.h
>> Intentional.
>>
>>> target/xtensa/overlay_tool.h
>> Unintentional.
>>
>>> target/xtensa/xtensa-isa.h
>> It's a one-liner that includes
Anthony PERARD writes:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 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
Max Filippov writes:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:12 AM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> target/xtensa/helper.h
> Intentional.
>
>> target/xtensa/overlay_tool.h
> Unintentional.
>
>> target/xtensa/xtensa-isa.h
> It's a one-liner that includes another header.
Feels like a bad idea, but it doesn't
Paul Durrant writes:
>
>> [...]
>> > Guest CPU Cores (Xen):
>> > --
>> >
>> > X86
>> > M: Stefano Stabellini
>> > M: Anthony Perard
>> > M: Paul Durrant
>> > include/hw/xen/io/ring.h
>>
>> I see a __XEN_PUBLIC_IO_RING_H__ guard there. Probably
>> clean-header-guards.pl
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 19:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 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,
>
> S390
> M: Richard Henderson
> M: David Hildenbrand
> target/s390x/helper.h
Intentional.
Cheers!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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
>
Markus Armbruster 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
On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:12:24 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:12:24 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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
On 5/28/19 8:12 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
target/tricore/tricore-opcodes.h
unintentional.
Cheers,
Bastian
> [...]
> > Guest CPU Cores (Xen):
> > --
> >
> > X86
> > M: Stefano Stabellini
> > M: Anthony Perard
> > M: Paul Durrant
> > include/hw/xen/io/ring.h
>
> I see a __XEN_PUBLIC_IO_RING_H__ guard there. Probably
> clean-header-guards.pl is confused by the comments at the
On 28/05/2019 20:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
...
Linux user
M: Riku Voipio
R: Laurent Vivier
Unintentionnal:
linux-user/errno_defs.h
linux-user/flat.h
linux-user/hppa/sockbits.h
linux-user/socket.h
linux-user/aarch64/syscall_nr.h
linux-user/alpha/syscall_nr.h
linux-user/arm/syscall_nr.h
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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?
On Tue, 28 May 2019, Markus Armbruster wrote:
sam460ex
M: BALATON Zoltan
hw/display/sm501_template.h
This is like other *_template.h files mentioned by Peter in his reply and
is intended to be included multiple times.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
On 5/28/19 1:12 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> accel/tcg/atomic_template.h
Intentional; could be renamed atomic_template.inc.c.
> accel/tcg/tcg-runtime.h
Intentional.
> tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.opc.h
> tcg/i386/tcg-target.opc.h
Intentional.
> tcg/tcg-gvec-desc.h
> tcg/tcg-op-gvec.h
Not
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:12 AM Markus Armbruster wrote:
> target/xtensa/helper.h
Intentional.
> target/xtensa/overlay_tool.h
Unintentional.
> target/xtensa/xtensa-isa.h
It's a one-liner that includes another header.
--
Thanks.
-- Max
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:12:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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?
On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 19:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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
35 matches
Mail list logo
