Re: dealing with excessive includes

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This needs annotations to fix, or a big bag of unreliable heuristics.
> 
> Ok you're right that case would need annotations.

Annotations are a different thing. Personally, I don't like adding them.

> I retreat my earlier statement that self sufficient include files
> are a good idea.  If it needs such hacks to do it it's probably not worth
> it. After all it won't fix a single bug.

  - It will fix bugs of the type: add #include <x.h> to y.c because on some
    architectures x.h isn't automatically pulled in by z.h.

  - It would help in cleaning up the zillions of includes in the .c files,
    decreasing compile time.

  - It would make it easier for developers, since if you need something, you
    just have to explicitly include the header file that defines it, and not
    have to find out the hard way what other stuff to include.

I agree, that's not that many `real bugs'.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
-
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/