This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: aggressive fixincludes
- To: ddsinc09 at ix dot netcom dot com, korbb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com
- Subject: Re: aggressive fixincludes
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:16:51 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: autogen at linuxbox dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
>
> One thing I am concerned about is that fixincluded files to not get
> updated when packages get updated. So, to prevent skew, we should
> keep the number of fixincluded files to a minimum, even if the fixes
> do not in any way break the file. Also, in C++, you can step into
> code in header files; it's bad if the header is missing its comments.
Agreed. So IMHO, we should relax the rules and allow // in system
headers even if -ansi is used and nuke all of this stuff from
fixincludes. That eliminates files which get fixed only for the sake
of C++ comments and reduces possible version skew.
I think to do this, we'd have to look at where the variable
`cplusplus_comments' is used in cccp.c/cpp*.c and add checks on
is_system_include() or ->system_header_p.
Any cpp gurus care to take a look?
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions