From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 22:14:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] banned-die: create header for banning of functions
Message-ID: <CABPp-BHtmjSqkgL+RL=nmd1VNqqZ6vDUhQxj0AnEzAHZxznoHw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <84634717e2eca479026d1cdf39a089a8f61d131e.1787684181.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

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)?

> +
> +#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?