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? 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.
Any opinions on using the less verbose syntax instead: #pragma once It is not portable C, but we explicitly only care about GCC or CLang, so portability isn't an issue for us. > Cryptography > M: Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> > crypto/ivgen-essiv.h > crypto/ivgen-plain.h > crypto/ivgen-plain64.h These have header guards present > tests/crypto-tls-psk-helpers.h > tests/crypto-tls-x509-helpers.h These should be fixed. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
