Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue

Liste des GroupesRevenir à ca embedded 
Sujet : Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.arch.embedded
Date : 21. Mar 2025, 16:45:11
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vrk1i7$1qjnk$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
On 21/03/2025 15:04, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 18/03/2025 19:28, Michael Schwingen wrote:
On 2025-03-18, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
A good makefile picks up the new files automatically and handles all the
dependencies, so often all you need is a new "make -j".
>
I don't do that anymore - wildcards in makefiles can lead to all kinds of
strange behaviour due to files that are left/placed somewhere but are not
really needed.
>
I'm sure you can guess the correct way to handle that - don't leave
files in the wrong places :-)
>
I prefer to list the files I want compiled - it is not that
much work.
>
>
In a project of over 500 files in 70 directories, it's a lot more work
than using wildcards and not keeping old unneeded files mixed in with
source files.
 In project with about 550 normal source files, 80 headers, 200 test
files, about 1200 generated files spread over 12 directories I use
explicit file lists.  Lists of files increase volume of Makefile-s,
but in my experience extra work to maintain file list is very small.
Compared to effort needed to create a file, adding entry to file list
is negligible.
That's true.
But compared to have a wildcard search to include all .c and .cpp files in the source directories, maintaining file lists is still more than nothing!
However, the real benefit from using automatic file searches like this is two-fold.  One is that you can't get it wrong - you can't forget to add the new file to the list, or remove deleted or renamed files from the list.  The other - bigger - effect is that there is never any doubt about the files in the project.  A file is in the project and build if and only if it is in one of the source directories.  That consistency is very important to me - and to anyone else trying to look at the project.   So any technical help in enforcing that is a good thing in my book.

 Explicit lists are useful if groups of files should get somewhat
different treatment (I have less need for this now, but it was
important in the past).
 
I do sometimes have explicit lists for /directories/ - but not for files.  I often have one branch in the source directory for my own code, and one branch for things like vendor SDKs and third-party code.  I can then use stricter static warnings for my own code, without triggering lots of warnings in external code.

IMO being explicit helps with readablity and make code more
amenable to audit.
 
A simple rule of "all files are in the project" is more amenable to audit.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
11 Mar 25 * 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue55pozz
11 Mar 25 `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue54David Brown
11 Mar 25  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue10pozz
12 Mar 25  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue9David Brown
12 Mar 25  i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue8pozz
12 Mar 25  i  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue7David Brown
12 Mar 25  i   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue6pozz
12 Mar 25  i    `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue5David Brown
13 Mar 25  i     `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4pozz
13 Mar 25  i      `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
14 Mar 25  i       `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2pozz
14 Mar 25  i        `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
12 Mar 25  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4pozz
12 Mar 25  i+- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
14 Mar 25  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Waldek Hebisch
14 Mar 25  i `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1pozz
15 Mar 25  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue39Michael Schwingen
15 Mar 25   +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Grant Edwards
16 Mar 25   i`- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Michael Schwingen
18 Mar 25   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue36pozz
18 Mar 25    +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue34David Brown
18 Mar 25    i+* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue7pozz
18 Mar 25    ii`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue6David Brown
21 Mar 25    ii `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue5Michael Schwingen
21 Mar 25    ii  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
21 Mar 25    ii  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
22 Mar 25    ii  i `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
21 Mar 25    ii  `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Waldek Hebisch
18 Mar 25    i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue26Michael Schwingen
18 Mar 25    i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue25David Brown
18 Mar 25    i  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue15Grant Edwards
18 Mar 25    i  i+* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue13Hans-Bernhard Bröker
19 Mar 25    i  ii+* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue10David Brown
19 Mar 25    i  iii`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue9Grant Edwards
19 Mar 25    i  iii `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue8David Brown
19 Mar 25    i  iii  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4Grant Edwards
19 Mar 25    i  iii  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
21 Mar 25    i  iii  i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
21 Mar 25    i  iii  i  `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Grant Edwards
19 Mar 25    i  iii  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3Waldek Hebisch
20 Mar 25    i  iii   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2David Brown
21 Mar 25    i  iii    `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1pozz
21 Mar 25    i  ii`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
21 Mar 25    i  ii `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Hans-Bernhard Bröker
19 Mar 25    i  i`- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
21 Mar 25    i  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue9Waldek Hebisch
21 Mar 25    i   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue8David Brown
21 Mar 25    i    +- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1pozz
22 Mar 25    i    +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4Hans-Bernhard Bröker
22 Mar 25    i    i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
22 Mar 25    i    i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
22 Mar 25    i    i  `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
22 Mar 25    i    `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Waldek Hebisch
22 Mar 25    i     `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
18 Mar 25    `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Michael Schwingen

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal