[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140106215057.GB25059@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:50:57 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>
Subject: Re: #pragma once?
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:33:49PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Does anyone have any objection to the use of "#pragma once" instead of
> > the usual #ifndef-#define-...-#endif include guard? GCC, LLVM/clang,
> > and the latest Sparse all support either method just fine. (I added
> > support to Sparse myself.) Both have equivalent performance. "#pragma
> > once" is simpler, and avoids the possibility of a typo in the defined
> > guard symbol.
>
> Does anybody know whether other static code analysis tools such as
> Coverity can handle #pragma once?
Coverity should be fine. If it does break, I'm sure they'd fix it.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists