Re: tree.h vs include guard

[Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 11:17:33AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> | On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:54:29AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > 
> | > Hi,
> | > 
> | >   I noticed that tree.h has no guard to prevent multiple-inclusions.
> | > Why so?  FWIW, c-tree.h, c-common.h and cp-tree.h do have such a
> | > thing.
> | 
> | Patches to add multiple include guards to all of GCC's internal
> | headers have been submitted in the past, but never approved and
> | applied, probably because they'd need an OK from someone with global
> | write privileges and all those people were too busy to review the
> | patch.
> | 
> | It was agreed, last time this came up, that in principle they should
> | all have guards.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder.  Do you have references to those patches?
> I realized that we're in stage 3, so maybe those patches are
> inappropriate at this moment; but I think they should be queued for
> after mainline is unfrozen.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-02/msg01342.html and followups.
This is something that could go on the gcc-3_4-basic-improvements-branch,
if we could get review for it.  The patches need updating.

zw