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 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.
I don't feel strongly about this particular question, so if folks prefer "#pragma once", I won't complain. I'd just like to report that section 6 of "HACKING" appears the opposite of "we explicitly only care about GCC or CLang". Thanks, Laszlo > > >> 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 >
