Subject: Re: multiple inclusion protection for kernel files
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: Matt Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/04/2005 09:28:33
Simon Burge wrote:
> In some cases I think it's better to leave as _MACHINE_FOO_H_. Let's
> pick the 68k ports <machine/elf_machdep.h> as an example, which looks
> #ifndef _MACHINE_ELF_MACHDEP_H_
> #define _MACHINE_ELF_MACHDEP_H_
> #include <m68k/elf_machdep.h>
> If you're doing a diff of two different m68k ports, I think it's a win
> to have these two show up the same. I haven't thought too much if it's
> always better to use _MACHINE_FOO_H_ or not though...
That is one of few cases where multiple inclusion protection isn't needed.
I'd prefer to see just a naked #include
Matt Thomas email: email@example.com
3am Software Foundry www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.