On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40, Christopher Li<sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Kamil Dudka<kdudka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Friday 07 of August 2009 22:27:08 Kamil Dudka wrote: >>> attached is another fix for SPARSE headers improving their sanity. I am >>> also attaching a simple test for the dependency tracking of headers. It's >>> not enough generic and portable and therefore not really useful. Maybe >>> someone skilled in writing makefiles might want to include something like >>> that to the SPARSE Makefile as part of the 'check' target. > > What is the significant of making every header file self compilable? > Unlike the kernel header files exported to user space, which usually > have self contained meaning. Most of these header file have tight interaction > with each other. I don't think it make sense for other sparse application > to just use one of the header file. > > Enforcing each header file to be self compilable will result in a lot > of unnecessary include. Gcc needs to include "symbol.h" many times > just to skip over it. Take a look at pre-process.c. It is not exactly > trivial. It needs to scan the token to find out the end of the if > scope. In this case, it might be better just let other header > file depend on "symbol.h". > > I want to heard what other people think about it too. I am a little bit > reluctant on this one. What about just using some forward decls instead of including the header files? e.g. for compile.h it is enough to have a "struct symbol;" there instead of the "#include <symbol.h>" to make it self-compilable. Cheers, -Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
