[Spice-devel] [spice-server] style: Slight tweak to the header guard section

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:56:49AM +0100, Lukáš Hrázký wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 22:43 +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> > > > On 14 Feb 2018, at 17:29, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > This changes the suggested style to what is currently used in
> > > > spice-server codebase. This also removes a few sentences which
> > > > are not really related to how one should format their header guards.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > docs/spice_style.txt | 6 ++----
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/docs/spice_style.txt b/docs/spice_style.txt
> > > > index c8a4cff66..bc18b1d9e 100644
> > > > --- a/docs/spice_style.txt
> > > > +++ b/docs/spice_style.txt
> > > > @@ -365,12 +365,10 @@ Headers should be protected against multiple
> > > > inclusion using a macro that contai
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > -#endif // MY_MODULE_H
> > > > +#endif /* MY_MODULE_H */
> > > 
> > > I had first written it with C style, Frediano suggested C++ style.Both
> > > are OK. Currently, we have 44 of one and 208 of the other, so the
> > > existing code base does not imply one or the other.
> > 
> > FWIW, I see no reason to use /* */ when // is simpler.
> 
> I don't feel strongly either way as long as it's consistent, and in
> spice-server case:
> 
> $ for f in spice/server/*.h; do tail -1 $f; done
> #endif /* AGENT_MSG_FILTER_H_ */
> #endif /* CACHE_ITEM_H_ */
> #endif /* CHAR_DEVICE_H_ */
> #endif /* COMMON_GRAPHICS_CHANNEL_H_ */
> #endif /* CURSOR_CHANNEL_CLIENT_H_ */
> #endif /* CURSOR_CHANNEL_H_ */
> #endif /* DCC_H_ */
> #endif /* DCC_PRIVATE_H_ */
> #endif /* DEMARSHALLERS_H_ */
> #endif /* DISPATCHER_H_ */
> #endif /* DISPLAY_CHANNEL_H_ */
> #endif /* DISPLAY_CHANNEL_PRIVATE_H_ */
> #endif /* DISPLAY_LIMITS_H_ */
> #endif /* GLIB_COMPAT_H_ */
> #endif /* GLZ_ENCODER_DICT_H_ */
> #endif /* GLZ_ENCODER_H_ */
> #endif /* GLZ_ENCODER_PRIV_H_ */
> #endif /* IMAGE_CACHE_H_ */
> #endif /* IMAGE_ENCODERS_H_ */
> #endif /* INPUTS_CHANNEL_CLIENT_H_ */
> #endif /* INPUTS_CHANNEL_H_ */
> #endif /* JPEG_ENCODER_H_ */
> #endif /* LZ4_ENCODER_H_ */
> #endif /* MAIN_CHANNEL_CLIENT_H_ */
> #endif /* MAIN_CHANNEL_H_ */
> #endif /* MAIN_DISPATCHER_H_ */
> #endif /* MEMSLOT_H_ */
> #endif /* MIGRATION_PROTOCOL_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_NET_UTILS_H_ */
> #endif /* PIXMAP_CACHE_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_CHANNEL_CAPABILITIES_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_CHANNEL_CLIENT_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_CHANNEL_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_CLIENT_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_COMMON_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_PARSE_QXL_H_ */
> 
> #endif /* RED_PIPE_ITEM_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_QXL_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_RECORD_QXL_H_ */
> #endif /* REDS_H_ */
> #endif /* REDS_PRIVATE_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_STREAM_H_ */
> #endif /* RED_WORKER_H_ */
> #endif /* SMARTCARD_CHANNEL_CLIENT_H_ */
> #endif /* SMART_CARD_H_ */
> #endif /* SOUND_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_AUDIO_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_BITMAP_UTILS_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_CHAR_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_CORE_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_EXPERIMENTAL_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_INPUT_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_MIGRATION_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_QXL_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_REPLAY_H_ */
> 
> /*** END file-tail ***/
> #endif /* SPICE_SERVER_H_ */
> #endif /* SPICE_VERSION_H_ */
> #endif /* STAT_FILE_H_ */
> #endif /* STAT_H_ */
> #endif /* STREAM_CHANNEL_H_ */
> #endif /* TREE_H_ */
> #endif /* UTILS_H_ */
> #endif /* VIDEO_ENCODER_H_ */
> #endif /* VIDEO_STREAM_H_ */
> #endif /* ZLIB_ENCODER_H_ */
> 

Maybe I helped creating this confusion.

I was looking at the example of the session talking about header guard
and my though was "let's hope this final comment style is not taken
literally, the section is about having the guards".
Personally C style, C++ style or a missing comment (I think in 95% of
all headers the last #endif is the close of the guard!) is not that
important.
>From the current style point of view (and taking into account that
this document is in spice-server) yes, the suggested style for closure
would be better to have a C style comment with the guard name.
Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe just a comment stating the end comment style is just an advice?

Frediano