From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id qkDsHoKX+2UKpA8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:12:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1710987138; bh=ilnJVWUBpDAj8U+JdqK+ZIVVWwIIMhb6lW48QXFGTBc=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=TQT/JS9VvheBmmCmiCVYv3MetDgCDKcUpy7p9j3eiiaIfvBxh9ceyydtbm/CHsxwA TBs395DV4WvJmSRP/oi3OsQJtSemm/LNszVfaSWJRZMa4Om4vFeclXUJpnPEE9SwDX J0fQCgVsQCamY2QE/7h49O5bfw1I3mqtjBnzjC/c= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6B8981E0C0; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=qvhjKWxe; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3642F1E08C for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9FB3858CDA for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 02:12:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 206363858D28 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 02:11:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 206363858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 206363858D28 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710987115; cv=none; b=NOoih7vNLb2nNjXoBmWdwbO2pxQx+fNxZQsI6DTD+UwER5gSWw8XHX5udCZoZQwqbS5PyFvpSjh8hHyKXrM1RWHj9VK4m0YgHqZFg3STtblDp52mEXMqwbOrXocITE+iRDFUvWTxTqQrcuBo/5DZAk/ySNLrwrOtlJSC+p209us= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710987115; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ilnJVWUBpDAj8U+JdqK+ZIVVWwIIMhb6lW48QXFGTBc=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=bMGAFlhRX+kXCPqiBZbS7YIwAtXNmw1UH7JlKxeqgW00ryHn/0iASt8cRB8ZUjO9ALCoEOFa+/Q8+Cr608otqmiGHQuqRxowDope7RqC1Nsry2bHoVbcRIQLQIlbza9KiGcwDFyQK8A/ot8Q6NNGW/rd5miT+XXbE5jdcaOhajA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1710987112; bh=ilnJVWUBpDAj8U+JdqK+ZIVVWwIIMhb6lW48QXFGTBc=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=qvhjKWxe7mLqeqFvH8gBzc/DroF9OatwMKghZ3TVG67gwOMku9NMIRq28rZ/Fmrha EJ5vaNjLYX5A4Y4kEKNbFy9q6An7hNxPgHKi9pmZ/V+uqJxYV89nQtAUpbg4iRTXc6 wn2dcYzSbjzUKsGZ6THdnDp4eI0QMiYuT0gSeutY= Received: from [10.0.0.170] (modemcable238.237-201-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.237.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F09B1E08C; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9a146cea-3adf-4365-8eb7-60c65d00dcf4@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:11:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gdb, gdbserver, gdbsupport: include config.h files with -include To: Pedro Alves , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20240318200257.131199-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <20240318200257.131199-2-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <2da78531-8a3a-4ac9-a87c-f4962d573fce@palves.net> Content-Language: fr From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <2da78531-8a3a-4ac9-a87c-f4962d573fce@palves.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 3/20/24 16:32, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 2024-03-18 20:01, Simon Marchi wrote: >> The motivation for this change is for analysis tools and IDEs to be >> better at analyzing header files on their own. >> >> There are some definitions and includes we want to occur at the very >> beginning of all translation units. The way we currently do that is by >> requiring all source files (.c and .cc files) to include one of defs.h >> (for gdb), server.h (for gdbserver) of common-defs.h (for gdbsupport and >> shared source files). These special header files define and include >> everything that needs to be included at the very beginning. Other >> header files are written in a way that assume that these special >> "prologue" header files have already been included. >> >> My problem with that is that my editor (clangd-based) provides a very >> bad experience when editing source files. > > I think you meant "when editing header files." Oops, yes. Fixed. >> Since clangd doesn't know >> that one of defs.h/server.h/common-defs.h was included already, a lot of >> things are flagged as errors. For instance, CORE_ADDR is not known. >> It's possible to edit the files in this state, but a lot of the power of >> the editor is unavailable. >> >> My proposal to help with this is to include those things we always want >> to be there using the compilers' `-include` option. Tom Tromey said >> that the current approach might exist because not all compilers used to >> have an option like this. But I believe that it's safe to assume they >> do today. >> >> With this change, clangd picks up the -include option from the compile >> command, and is able to analyze the header file correctly, as it sees >> all that stuff included or defined but that -include option. That works >> because when editing a header file, clangd tries to get the compilation >> flags from a source file that includes said header file. >> >> This change is a bit, because it addresses one of my frustrations when > > This change is a bit ______? (fill in missing word). Oops again. I meant "This change is a bit self-serving". >> editing header files, but it might help others too. I'd be curious to >> know if others encounter the same kinds of problems when editing header >> files. Also, even if the change is not necessary by any means, I think >> the solution of using -include for stuff we always want to be there is >> more elegant than the current solution. >> >> Even with this -include flag, many header files currently don't include >> what they use, but rather depend on files included before them. This >> will still cause errors when editing them, but it should be easily >> fixable by adding the appropriate include. There's no rush to do so, as >> long as the code still copiles, it's just a convenience thing. > > copiles -> compiles Fixed. > Note there is a make rule to check whether gdb headers are standalone. "make check-headers". > Unfortunately, nobody ever runs that ( me included, after adding it a decade ago :-P ). > Ideally, we'd fix all it flags and run it (or something like it) once in a while in a CI. > (And same for gdbserver/gdbsupport, of course.) Ah! I probably saw that in the past but forgot about it. It might need to be changed too, depending on what follows. >> This patch does the small step of moving the inclusion of the various >> config.h files to that new method. The changes are: >> >> - Add three files meant to be included with -include: gdb/gdb.inc.h, >> gdbserver/gdbserver.inc.h and gdbsupport/gdbsupport.inc.h. >> - Move the inclusion of the various config.h files there >> - Modify the compilation flags of all three subdirectories to add the >> appropriate -include option. > > I'm surprised by the actual patch. Why isn't this including defs.h/common-defs.h? There are > surely things defined in those files that need to be defined in headers too. Why create > this divergence? I'd think that we would include defs.h/common-defs.h in headers too, and > then work on moving things out of defs.h/common-defs.h over time. I am not sure I understand what you mean. If a given header file uses something defined in defs.h, then it should include defs.h. Otherwise it doesn't need to. Maybe if you give a concrete example I will get your point better. Simon