Re: [PATCH] Don't compile non-OPENSSL code when using OPENSSL andvice versa

[Andreas Ericsson <ae () op5 se>]

Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> From: Andreas Ericsson
> Sent: 2/28/2006 1:53:46 AM
>
> > I'd be surprised if this actually makes the binary smaller. Any sane 
> > compiler recognizes and removes dead code when it's as obvious as this 
> > (most do when it's less obvious). In fact, even code like
> >
> > #define HAVE_OPENSSL 0
> >
> > if (HAVE_OPENSSL && some_other_condition)
> >      do_fun_things();
> >
> > would be left out entirely. If do_fun_things() is static and called only 
> > from that point (or within blocks like this), it too will be removed.
>
>
> While that's most likely very true, is there a reason to make the compiler do it
> (just because it should) instead of the preprocessor (because you tell it)?
>
> I'm not by any means saying you're wrong, but I do (at least) think using the
> preprocessor #if/#else makes the code more readable/easier to understand rather
> than just leaving it out there for the compiler to do.

Perhaps, but considering that of the four patched blocks two were 
"return within ifdef" and two others just moved the #ifdef to above a 
comment, the patch is a no-op for the compiled code with the exception 
of moving that 'int tmp' outside it.

I was just commenting since you didn't seem to be aware of it (no 
comments in the patch message about readability).

> Of course, whatever's best.

Naturally. I'd say that 'int tmp' swings the balance. I'd probably apply 
it, after removing the blocks moving the #ifdefs anyways.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson () op5 se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231


_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev