On 27/05/19 07:10, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Another suggestion: are there headers that cannot even be included once >> (due to dependencies)? Is it worth including a test for those even in >> the first iteration? >> > I'm not sure I get what you mean. > > Most headers failing the test fail it in the first #include: they fail > to conform to 2. Headers should normally include everything they need > beyond osdep.h.
Ok, good to know. > The only way to fail in the second #include is a missing header guard. > If it's missing intentionally, it's "_meant_ to be included many times", > and you propose renaming to .inc.h. Else, easy fix. > > I think I'll make a list of headers that fail in the second #include, > and try to sort them into "intentional" and "bug" buckets. The proposal is to make two tests, but it can come later. Another idea could be to make it print the result as TAP. But I could work on that later. Paolo
