I will try to get it into a state where it will at least run under Windows or an Ubuntu VM and check it in with a licence header and warnings...
Martin On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Martin Mathieson < > martin.r.mathie...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have attached the script that I used over the past week or 2 to detect >> and delete unneeded #includes. I am not sure whether it is fit for >> submitting to the tools folder in its current state. >> >> By my count it deleted > 1400 #includes, although: >> - not all source files were scanned (e.g. plugins, epan other than >> dissectors) >> - a few includes later needed to be restored >> >> The script works by attempting to build without each #include, and >> permanently removing all that seem not to be needed. Ideally, a script >> like this would be run in the least forgiving environment available and any >> added warnings seen after a deletion would be treated as failure. I am >> currently building under VS 2010 EE, which is maybe the most forgiving >> environment we support. The Ubuntu build done by the Petri Dish definitely >> helped, but new errors were still seen after committing the changes. >> >> My reluctance to commit the script in its current form is because: >> - while I hope it was worth running once, I'm not sure it'll be worth >> doing again. Having said that, the script has some cowardly rules for not >> deleting includes that a better version on a less forgiving build >> environment could discard. I doubt you could even measure the difference >> it makes to a clean build time, but hopefully removing some clutter was >> helpful. >> - it is hard-coded to build with nmake. I'm not sure how best to choose >> between make/Makefile and nmake/Makefile.nmake >> - the results always need to be treated with care, and I wouldn't want >> someone to run the script for several hours to find that they can't commit >> the result. >> >> I'd be very happy if someone wants to further develop and run the script, >> but unless someone feels differently I'll assume that it shouldn't be >> committed as it stands. >> >> Best regards, >> Martin >> > Hi Martin, > > May be push your script on tools ? (for don't forget...) > >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> >> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev >> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev >> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org >> ?subject=unsubscribe >> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org > ?subject=unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
