On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 03:58:56PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 15:14, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 08:51:26AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:50:05PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > > docs/devel/style.rst mandates: > > > > > > > > The "qemu/osdep.h" header contains preprocessor macros that affect > > > > the behavior of core system headers like <stdint.h>. It must be > > > > the first include so that core system headers included by external > > > > libraries get the preprocessor macros that QEMU depends on. > > > > > > > > Do not include "qemu/osdep.h" from header files since the .c file > > > > will have already included it. > > > > > > > > A few violations have crept in. Fix them. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> > > > > Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Taylor Simpson <tsimp...@quicinc.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> > > > > > > With my awesome grep skillz I found one more: > > > $ grep -r --include='*.h' qemu/osdep.h > > > include/block/graph-lock.h:#include "qemu/osdep.h" > > > > > > Looks like all C files must include qemu/osdep.h, no? > > > > Yes, and IMHO that is/was a mistake, as it means our other header > > files are not self-contained, which prevents developer tools from > > reporting useful bugs when you're editting. > > The underlying requirement is "osdep.h must be included > before any system header file". "Always first in every .c file" > is an easy way to achieve that, and "never in any .h file" is > then not mandatory but falls out from the fact that any > such include is pointless and only serves to increase > the compilation time (and to increase the chances that > you don't notice that you forgot osdep.h in your .c file). > > If there's a better way to do this (e.g. one which meant > that it was a compile error to put osdep includes in the > wrong place or to omit them) then that would certainly > save us periodically having to do this kind of fixup commit. > > thanks > -- PMM
yes I just posted a patch that will catch most (though not all) such cases. if we switch to -include it will catch all of them but there seems to be some resistance to this idea.
