Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/4] xen: introduce a C99 headers check

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> 03/27/17 10:50 PM >>>
> >On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 24.03.17 at 19:31, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Introduce a C99 headers check, for non-ANSI compliant headers. No
> >> > headers are added to the check yet.
> >> > 
> >> > In addition to the usual -include stdint.h, also add -include string.h
> >> > to the C99 check to get the declaration of memcpy and size_t.
> >> 
> >> Is this really needed for the check to succeed, without there being
> >> any user of the macros?
> >
> >The check is unneeded, but the two following patches are going to add
> >two new users of these macros. The check will be needed then. I'll move
> >the patch to the end of the series.
> 
> We shouldn't enforce this extra inclusion on all headers, i.e. I think you'll
> need to introduce per-header prereqs to be enforced via -include.

I understand what you mean now, but all C99 headers have the same
prereqs and none of the ansi headers have any prereqs. The only
overlapping case is the c++ tests.

I would probably assume that c99 headers have an extra prereq, and
maybe add a check only in the c++ test to add prereqs when necessary.

I'll send a new version of the series today, maybe we can discuss that.


> > > For the same reasons, also add -include string.h to the C++ check.
> > 
> > Same here then.
> 
> One more thing here - if at all, this perhaps would need to be cstring instead
> of string.h.

OK

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel