Hi Akashi,
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 20:59, AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 07:39:35PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 04:32:40PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
There is a lot of use of #ifdefs in U-Boot. In an effort reduce this, suggest using the compile-time construct.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
This check is simple, but IMHO, too simple. It will generate false-positive, or pointless, warnings for some common use cases. Say,
In an include header, #ifdef CONFIG_xxx extern int foo_data; int foo(void); #endif
We should try to avoid this in header files. But I sent a patch earlier today to turn off the check for header files and device tree.
Or in a C file (foo_common.c), #ifdef CONFIG_xxx_a int foo_a(void) ... #endif #ifdef CONFIG_xxx_b int foo_b(void) ... #endif
Perhaps the if() could be inside those functions in some cases?
Or,
struct baa baa_list[] = { #ifdef CONFIG_xxx data_xxx, #endif
I'm not sure how to handle this one.
...
They are harmless and can be ignored, but also annoying. Can you sophisticate this check?
Yes I agree we should avoid false negatives. It is better not to have a check than have one that is unreliable.
In addition, if I want to stick to this rule, there can co-exist an "old" style and "new" style of code in a single file. (particularly tons of examples in UEFI subsystem)
How should we deal with this?
Convert it?
Thanks, -Takahiro Akashi
Regards, Simon