So as to not keep hijacking unrelated thread... On 15 January 2018 at 20:43, Jiří Zárevúcky <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 January 2018 at 20:29, Jakub Jermář <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 01/15/2018 08:12 PM, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: >>> On 15 January 2018 at 19:35, Jiri Svoboda <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> We've had discussion on #pragma once in june last year and agreed to stay >>>> with classic header guards instead. And we didn't even take into >>>> consideration the discussion in: >>>> >>>> http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2017/p0538r0.html >>>> >>>> which is another point against using #pragma once. >>>> >>> >>> I'm familiar with that paper, and the issues don't matter in current >>> HelenOS. >>> I'd be more interested in the old discussion. Where can I find it? >> >> See this thread: >> >> http://lists.modry.cz/private/helenos-devel/2017-June/007983.html >> >> "Agreed" in this context means I was the only one who was in favor. But >> we have the majority now? :-) >> > > Ah, yes, I read that one before. > > So to sum up the drawbacks: > > > - It's not standard. > > True, but meaningless. We use plenty of nonstandard extensions. It's > literally impossible to implement libc without using some. > > - Some archaic/toy compiler may not support it. > > Also true, but as JJ said, such a compiler wouldn't build HelenOS > anyway. #pragma once is supported by any half-serious C compiler (see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma_once). > > - `#pragma once` is in trouble if the same header is accessed via > multiple paths. > > Not an issue for us. Multipath headers are a bug, not a feature. > > -- jzr
_______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel
