On Wed, Sep 21 2022, Skrab Sah wrote:
> [...]
> Is Makefile generated by another script?
> [...]
> For patches, I need some time and your help.
Aside from what Junio noted in another reply: I and others here are
generally happy to help, but when you're proposing to entirely re-do how
a part of our build process works, then you really should know the
answers to not only the basics ("is the Makefile generated?"), but also
the more complex interactions.
If you're still interested I think there's good things to work on in
this area, but starting smaller (e.g. my upthread iwyu suggestion, or
similar) would be much better.
I.e. think about the practical benefits of a proposed big rewrite are,
and whether there's ways to get some large portion of that in easier
ways.
> On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 15:43, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20 2022, Skrab Sah wrote:
>>
>> > Let me elaborate to you, how and why I wanted to implement the
>> > makeheaders tool in the project.
>> >
>> > First of all, this program will automatically generate c header(.h)
>> > files for specified c source(.c) files, which will help the developer.
>> >
>> > Here the test shows how the tool can be implemented in different
>> > cases: https://github.com/skrab-sah/makeheaders-test
>> >
>> >
>> > pros:
>> > 1. it will slightly reduce the size of the project.
>> > 2. no need to declare anything in the header file, which is time
>> > consuming and a headache for developers.
>>
>> Sure, this all sound interesting in principle, and I think the answer is
>> definitely "we're not opposed in principle, but if you're interested
>> let's see patches".
>>
>> But whether this is worthwhile is something that really can't be
>> answered until someone (i.e. you) puts in the legwork of implementing
>> it.
>>
>> You'll then run into various trade-offs you'd have to make, and issues
>> you may not have forseen. Just some I can think of offhand:
>>
>> * It's unclear if you mean that we'd commit the generated files or
>> not. If "not" then our Makefile will need to learn to do two-stage
>> compilation. I.e. we'd ship a copy of the makeheader tool, build
>> that, build the headers, and then do our "real" build.
>>
>> I happen to have an implementation of that "two-stage" compilation
>> for entirely different reasons (being able to do configure/probes for
>> our compilation), but *just* doing that is non-trivial.
>>
>> * The way we document various APIs now is via manually curated header
>> files, e.g. how would a strbuf.h look like in this model you're
>> proposing?
>>
>> Obviously we could move those comments to the *.c file, but right now
>> we have a convention of implementation comments going in the *.c
>> file, but the API docs going in the *.h.
>>
>> We could tell them apart with "/*" v.s. "/**" comments, as we do
>> now. But part of the point of having them in the *.h file is that you
>> can easily skim the docs & APi definition. Putting the docs in the
>> much bigger *.c file wouldn't be nice.
>>
>> * We'd have another not-quite-compiler C-parser running on git.git,
>> right now we basically have a dependency on spatch's parsing. See
>> 5cf88fd8b05 (git-compat-util.h: use "UNUSED", not "UNUSED(var)",
>> 2022-08-25).
>>
>> Is this parser smart enough to handle all the edge cases? E.g. for
>> KHASH_INIT() we define interfaces via a macro-indirection, so an
>> auto-generated *.h needs to resolve the macros in the *.c file.
