On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> 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 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 doubt its worth the churn. But I'm content to go with the flow here.
Since the collective response was effectively "Meh", lets just pretend i didn't raise this suggestion :-) 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 :|
