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

["Kris Katterjohn" <kjak () ispwest com>]

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.

Of course, whatever's best.

Kris Katterjohn



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