Re: [GIT PULL] headers_check fixes

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 12:12:23AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Hi Russell.
> > 
> > On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 10:47:11PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > Right, below is a patch to unifdef.c which allows it to work out if
> > > an #if expression always evaluates true or false for symbols which
> > > are being undefined/always defined.
> > > 
> > > The patch is slightly more complicated than I'd hoped because unifdef
> > > needs to see lines fully evaluated - doing otherwise causes it to
> > > mark the line as "dirty" and copy it over no matter what.
> > > 
> > > What follows this email is the diff of what effect it has on the
> > > headers copied over - as can be seen, all resulting changes are of
> > > net benefit.
> > 
> > You beat me on this one.
> > I was looking into supportting short_circuit_and/short_circuit_or too.
> > Your patch looks better - thanks!
> > 
> > >From my very limited testing this patch suffers from a problem I faced too.
> > When you run it on for example hwcap.h or my sample file:
> > #if defined(__KERNEL__) && !defined(__ASSEMBLY__)
> >   int a;
> > #endif
> > 
> > then the return code of the program is 1 so we do not copy the file.
> 
> That's correct.  If unifdef removes any lines, the exit code is 1, not
> zero.  This happens with the unmodified unifdef as well, so I'm not
> changing that behaviour.

Thanks.
I was just fooled in my testing.
With the same file I saw two different return codes with and
without the patch. But this is because you fixed unifdef.

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/