To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/17/2001 23:40:13
der Mouse wrote:
> > I notice SUSv2 says that <sys/socket.h> is a standalone include,
> > whereas we require <sys/types.h> to be included first.
> Are there any include files that _shouldn't_ be standalone?
For the <sys/socket.h> case, there is standards doco that says it should
be standalone. I think my position is that documented kernel interfaces
defined in a particular header shouldn't require including prerequisite
headers, but I haven't thought it through that much.
> I believe
> not[%], and have been gradually fixing non-standalonenesses where I
> find them. Of the .h patches in my private patch tree, a quick count
> says 40 (out of 97) are solely to add needed but missing includes.
> (Another handful have such changes but have other chagnes too.) I'm
> sure I've only barely scratched the surface; to do a thorough job I'd
> try including each one standalone, with no code, and see what breaks.
I'd be curious to see the list that you have...
Simon Burge <email@example.com>
NetBSD CDs, Support and Service: http://www.wasabisystems.com/