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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
