Hi,
On 2024-02-12 16:46:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Approaches like that as well as the in-tree pgrminclude work by "I
> > removed the #include and it still compiled fine", which can be
> > unreliable. IWYU on the other hand has the compiler tracking where a
> >
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Approaches like that as well as the in-tree pgrminclude work by "I
> removed the #include and it still compiled fine", which can be
> unreliable. IWYU on the other hand has the compiler tracking where a
> symbol actually came from, and so if it says that an #include
On 2024-Feb-10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So as a test, I ran IWYU over the backend *.c files and removed all the
> #includes it suggested. (Note that IWYU also suggests to *add* a bunch of
> #includes, in fact that is its main purpose; I didn't do this here.) In some
> cases, a more specific
Hi,
On 2024-02-10 08:40:43 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So as a test, I ran IWYU over the backend *.c files and removed all the
> #includes it suggested. (Note that IWYU also suggests to *add* a bunch of
> #includes, in fact that is its main purpose; I didn't do this here.) In some
> cases,
On Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 1:40 AM CST, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I played with include-what-you-use (IWYU), "a tool for use with clang to
analyze #includes in C and C++ source files".[0] I came across this via
clangd (the language server), because clangd (via the editor) kept
suggesting a bunch of
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:08:40PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10.02.24 21:13, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I haven't played with it at all, but the topic reminds me of this thread:
>>
>>
>> https://postgr.es/m/flat/CALDaNm1B9naPDTm3ox1m_yZvOm3KA5S4kZQSWWAeLHAQ%3D3gV1Q%40mail.gmail.com
On 10.02.24 21:13, Nathan Bossart wrote:
(Interestingly, IWYU has been mentioned in src/tools/pginclude/README since
2012. Has anyone else played with it? Was it not mature enough back then?)
I haven't played with it at all, but the topic reminds me of this thread:
On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 08:40:43AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The purpose of this patch is twofold: One, it's of course a nice cleanup.
> Two, this is a test how well IWYU might work for us. If we find either by
> human interpretation that a change doesn't make sense, or something breaks
>
