Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> 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. >> >> Why do I ask? I'd like to mark the intentional ones and fix the >> accidental ones, so they don't flunk "make check-headers" from "[RFC v4 >> 0/7] Baby steps towards saner headers" just because they lack multiple >> inclusion guards. >> >> 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 >> can safely be included more than once. >> >> 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 tell me which headers intentionally lack guards. >> > [...] >> >> EDK2 Firmware >> M: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >> M: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> >> tests/uefi-test-tools/UefiTestToolsPkg/Include/Guid/BiosTablesTest.h > > This file has a guard in non-standard formats: > > #ifndef __BIOS_TABLES_TEST_H__ > #define __BIOS_TABLES_TEST_H__ > ...
scripts/clean-header-guards.pl didn't recognize the guard due to the // comment after the #endif. I fixed the script, then used it to clean up this header. Thanks!