These headers files were missing from the header files that
I added them to; the fact that they were missing didn't
lead to compile errors because by coincidence the missing
headers are included in the source files before including
these headers. But, after the reordering of header inclusions
by Tools/fix_headers.sh, these cases will give rise to compiler
errors.
We don't have C++ unsafe headers (anymore).
I added a test to fix_headers.sh that checks if certain "unsafe"
headers are ONLY included inside a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS
(because after all, they are unsafe), as well as checking that
no other header files are included inside such a block. The rationale
of the latter is that if a file is a C header and it declares
function prototypes (otherwise it doesn't matter) and is sometimes
included outside a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS block (from a C++
source file) then it has to be C++ safe and doesn't ever to be
included from inside such a block; while if a file is a C++ header
then obviously it should never be included from such a block.
fix_headers.sh subsequently found several safe headers to be
included from inside such a block, and those that were (apparently
in the past) unsafe were included only sometimes inside such a
block and often outside it. I had a look at those files and saw
that at least an attempt has been made to make them C++ safe,
but especially because they already are included OFTEN outside
a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS (from C++ source files) the
best decision seems to treat them as safe.
This is not risky: .c files that define such functions still
generate C-linkage for their functions. If a C++ unsafe C header
is included outside a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS block then
the only possible result would be an undefined reference to
a function with C++-linkage that will not exist. Aka, when
something links after this commit, then the commit was correct.
I did build all targets and they all linked.
Daniel Agar