Duplicate files warning in compilation time about gct HOT 7 CLOSED

@iWangJiaxiang: I've seen that, too, during my local compile runs. So far I haven't noticed any problems that derived from that.

The content in RIOT-OS/RIOT#6367 seems to be related, which would point to doxygen as origin. Maybe a configuration default changed.

from gct.

It's true the warnings come from doxygen, but it points to a deeper problem: there are several files with the same name, which actually are basically the same code, but with minor differences. Compare for example read_vhost_cred_dir.c in gsi/gssapi with read_vhost_cred_dir.c in gsi/gss_assist.
In itself there doesn't seem to be anything wrong, but the code-duplication can lead to errors. For now we can probably leave it as is, but it would be good to put a todo item somewhere to cleanup the duplicate code (if possible).

from gct.

It's true the warnings come from doxygen, but it points to a deeper problem: there are several files with the same name, which actually are basically the same code, but with minor differences. Compare for example read_vhost_cred_dir.c in gsi/gssapi with read_vhost_cred_dir.c in gsi/gss_assist.

The first one is also located in a library directory.

From the history of these files (https://github.com/gridcf/gct/commits/master/gsi/gssapi/source/library/read_vhost_cred_dir.c and https://github.com/gridcf/gct/commits/master/gsi/gss_assist/source/read_vhost_cred_dir.c) the second one seems to be the older one. So it could be that the Globus team was about to move that functionality into a library but didn't yet remove the original file for compatibility or lack of time.

from gct.

@msalle
I think removing one or the other nearly identical files and trying to recompile the whole GCT could show which one is really needed. But this way we can't determine if one or the other is possibly needed by some other code external to the GCT.

from gct.

@fscheiner I agree it's not fully trivial. For static functions it would be fine, for non-static functions we cannot remove them. But there will be issues probably if there are currently non-static functions with the same name...

from gct.

Ok, the let's try to fix the Doxygen configuration then instead. The Documentation for the \file command says:

[...] If the file name is omitted (i.e. the line after \file is left blank) then the documentation block that
contains the \file command will belong to the file it is located in. [...]

So omitting the file name from the \file command (@file in our sources) in the respective files could make the above messages disappear. I'll try that locally and report back.

from gct.

Fixed in GCT 6.2.20210826 maintenance release.

from gct.