From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 12:29:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] banned-die: create header for banning of functions
Message-ID: <4f9348a8-b71a-4583-8451-99ade6fced89@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BHtmjSqkgL+RL=nmd1VNqqZ6vDUhQxj0AnEzAHZxznoHw@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/25/2026 6:14 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 11:58 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> [...]
>> +#undef die
>> +#define die banned(die)
> 
> Shouldn't that be BANNED(die) to match all the other cases in the code
> (and avoid an obtuse "implicit declaration of function 'banned'"
> instead of the nicer "sorry_die_is_a_banned_function" message)?

Oops. Yes, a mistake during a rebase. 
>> +
>> +#endif /* BANNED_DIE_H */
>> diff --git a/trace2.c b/trace2.c
>> index c23c0a227b..1d0ed2db2b 100644
>> --- a/trace2.c
>> +++ b/trace2.c
>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>  #include "trace2/tr2_tgt.h"
>>  #include "trace2/tr2_tls.h"
>>  #include "trace2/tr2_tmr.h"
>> +#include "banned-die.h"
>>
> 
> Is there a risk that future folks add new includes at the end of the
> list, then functions in them get added to banned-die.h, but are
> silently ignored because banned-die.h wasn't the last include?

There is a risk. The "must be last" part is documented in the
header, but maybe it should be in a comment here, too.

Thanks,
-Stolee