On 05/29/19 16:10, Markus Armbruster wrote: > 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! >
(Sorry, I've just replied to the thread starter, before seeing this subthread. I'm OK if the header file is cleaned up.)
