On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 01:50:27PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 01:25:33PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 01:11:18PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 02:08:44PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > > I had a few in-progress changes from a week or two ago,
> > > and am clearing the decks.
> > >
> > > I added a new build-checking rule (coming separately)
> > > and it exposed an unnecessary include:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > So we have a way to find header files which are unused?
>
> No - this is impossible unless you have a copy of every OS we've ever
> tested on. It may be unused on Linux, but may be needed on Solaris, etc
> etc. Removing <getopt.h> is an obviously safe action, but in general
> we should be wary of removing supposedly unused heads.
Surely we can do it for POSIX calls?
Of course the OS / libc itself may not obey POSIX ...
Yeah, I'm not convinced any OS is fully compliant with POSIX header file
definitions - particularly when you get into more obscure platforms like
win32/cygwin, or even just slightly older Linux. And we're compiling with
the _USE_GNU extension defined so the headers we're including on Linux
aren't even in POSIX compliant mode anyway
Dan.
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|