cppunit-devel

RE: [Cppunit-devel] Duplicated #includes

[Summerwill, B. <BSu...@eu...>]

Baptiste wrote ...

>> Shoudln't that <string> only be included if you don't have 
>> CPPUNIT_HAVE_SSTREAM anyway ?

I'm not sure.  Presumably it's there so that the inline implementation
of OStringStream::str() can construct the msg local variable, in which
case you are probably correct.


>> Wouldn't it be better to move the declaration of OStringStream in
>> its one header (include/cppunit/portability, include/cppunit/tools ?),
>> and includes it only where it is used ?

Yes!  Looks like it's only used in assertion_traits<T>::toString() and
in TestFactoryRegistry::registerFactory(), so that would be sensible.
The new header file would then #include Portability.h, for its
pre-processor defines.

If that's done, then the duplicated includes information I sent would
no longer be valid, but the solution would be better, I think.


Cheers,
Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: Baptiste Lepilleur [mailto:gai...@fr...]
Sent: 25 September 2001 14:06
To: Cpp Unit Develpment Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Cppunit-devel] Duplicated #includes



Quoting "Summerwill, Bob" <BSu...@eu...>:

> 
> I've just had a quick scan through CppUnit 1.6.0, and found these
> duplicated
> #includes.  The <string> ones are due to addition of a <string> #include
> in
> Portability.h, making the other ones unnecessary.

  Shoudln't that <string> only be included if you don't have 
CPPUNIT_HAVE_SSTREAM anyway ?

  Wouldn't it be better to move the declaration of OStringStream in its one 
header (include/cppunit/portability, include/cppunit/tools ?), and includes
it 
only where it is used ?

  Baptiste.

> Source file                                Duplicated include
> -----------                                ------------------
> extensions/HelperMacros.h                  string
> extensions/TestFactoryRegistry.h           string
> extensions/TestSuiteBuilder.h
> cppunit/extensions/TypeInfoHelper.h
> TestAssert.h                               string
> TestCase.cpp                               cppunit/Exception.h
> TestCase.h                                 string
> TestSuite.h                                string
> TypeInfoHelper.cpp                         string
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cppunit-devel mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppunit-devel
> 

---
Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...>
http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/index.html
Language: English, French

_______________________________________________
Cppunit-devel mailing list
Cpp...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppunit-devel

RE: [Cppunit-devel] Duplicated #includes

[Summerwill, B. <BSu...@eu...>]

They don't cause any trouble as such, but they will increase
compile times, maybe substantially.

On most compilers, the preprocessor will have to fully expand the
second #include (including traversing the indirect includes which
the header itself has *), before it can notice the #ifndef, and
discard the lot.

MSVC++ solves this with #pragma once, but this isn't a portable
solution.  I just wanted to point these duplications out, as
summed over the whole application, they can make a real difference
to the compile time.


Cheers,
Bob


* Just starting traversing the headers shipped with MSVC++,
including <string> also drags in ...

istream
ostream
ios
streambuf
xlocnum
cerrno
errorno.h
climits
limits.h
cstdio
stdio.h
cstdlib
stdlib.h
xiosbase
xlocale
cstring
string.h
stdexcept
exception
xstring
etc ...

So having <string> included twice may well cause an additional 20
or 30 file operations for _each_ client file which uses the
header with the duplicated include.



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve M. Robbins [mailto:ste...@vi...]
Sent: 25 September 2001 15:41
To: Cpp Unit Develpment Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Cppunit-devel] Duplicated #includes



Hello,

Sorry for being so dense this morning, but: do the duplicated includes
cause any trouble?


On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:30:33PM +0100, Summerwill, Bob wrote:
> Baptiste wrote ...
> 
> >> Shoudln't that <string> only be included if you don't have 
> >> CPPUNIT_HAVE_SSTREAM anyway ?
> 
> I'm not sure.  Presumably it's there so that the inline implementation
> of OStringStream::str() can construct the msg local variable, in which
> case you are probably correct.

Yeah, you're right, it could be protected.
 
> >> Wouldn't it be better to move the declaration of OStringStream in
> >> its one header (include/cppunit/portability, include/cppunit/tools ?),
> >> and includes it only where it is used ?

The whole reason for "Portability" is so that you can just
#include it, and then assume a whole bunch of things.  Like
class OStringStream is defined.  I would argue that including
<string> unconditionally in "Portability.h" is also a good thing.

It is true that at present, OStringStream is only used in a couple
of the CppUnit sources.  However, users that define their own
assertion_traits (i.e. ME!) also use OStringStream.  It is convenient
to include a single CppUnit header and have everything I need
defined.

As I said above: I don't understand the concern over a few extra
includes.

-Steve

-- 
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants


_______________________________________________
Cppunit-devel mailing list
Cpp...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppunit-devel

Re: [Cppunit-devel] Duplicated #includes

[Steve M. R. <ste...@vi...>]

Hello,

Sorry for being so dense this morning, but: do the duplicated includes
cause any trouble?


On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:30:33PM +0100, Summerwill, Bob wrote:
> Baptiste wrote ...
> 
> >> Shoudln't that <string> only be included if you don't have 
> >> CPPUNIT_HAVE_SSTREAM anyway ?
> 
> I'm not sure.  Presumably it's there so that the inline implementation
> of OStringStream::str() can construct the msg local variable, in which
> case you are probably correct.

Yeah, you're right, it could be protected.
 
> >> Wouldn't it be better to move the declaration of OStringStream in
> >> its one header (include/cppunit/portability, include/cppunit/tools ?),
> >> and includes it only where it is used ?

The whole reason for "Portability" is so that you can just
#include it, and then assume a whole bunch of things.  Like
class OStringStream is defined.  I would argue that including
<string> unconditionally in "Portability.h" is also a good thing.

It is true that at present, OStringStream is only used in a couple
of the CppUnit sources.  However, users that define their own
assertion_traits (i.e. ME!) also use OStringStream.  It is convenient
to include a single CppUnit header and have everything I need
defined.

As I said above: I don't understand the concern over a few extra
includes.

-Steve

-- 
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants