[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #30167] func-name (#define FUNC_NAME) check not applied fully

From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: [bug #30167] func-name (#define FUNC_NAME) check not applied fully
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:42:19 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/2010033100 Iceweasel/3.0.6 (Debian-3.0.6-3)


                 Summary: func-name (#define FUNC_NAME) check not applied
                 Project: Guile
            Submitted by: ttn
            Submitted on: gio 17 giu 2010 14:42:17 CEST
                Category: None
                Severity: 2 - Minor
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: ttn
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any



In libguile/Makefile.am, the awk script guile-func-name-check is not being
applied to pairs.c and memoize.c because those files are not derivable from
the *DOT_DOC_FILES variables.  This incomplete coverage ensures ignorance of
(possible, future) func-name bugs there, which is undesirable.

Running the check manually on those files produces spurious warnings (false
positives), which is probably one reason why they were omitted in the first

There are some related infelicities surrounding this situation:

1/ The awk script is run in the .c.doc pattern rule.  Is that really
necessary?  It's a static check -- why not move it some dedicated target, like
"make function-name-check", that can be called less frequently (by
maintainers)?  See 3/ below.

2/ The long lists of mostly-redundant filenames is bug-prone.  Better to
restructure the groupings additively and make use of Automake support for
$(VAR:OLD=NEW) syntax.

3/ It's awk.  That is an affront to my scheming sensibilities.
The doc extraction/processing flow tail already uses Scheme, why not the
nose, as well?!


Reply to this item at:


  Messaggio inviato con/da Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]