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 12:10:40 PM
> Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> > 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.

Yeah, I moved the #if around the comments in nbase_rnd.c because when I put the
#else around the bottom part (which, along with tmp, was the point of that part
of the patch) the comment for the non-OpenSSL stuff was inside the #else. So if
I moved the other comments inside, it'd be the same everywhere instead of some
outside and some inside the #if's. I hope that made sense :)

I'm not sure what you mean by two "return within ifdefs". The one in
service_scan.cc is, but there are two sections of code with more than just a return toward the end of 
get_random_bytes() in nbase_rnd.c: one for OpenSSL and
not. The #ifdef separates them and also allows for tmp to be separated using #if,
too. Or maybe I just didn't understand what you were saying.

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

Yeah, that was just a "side-effect". The patch wasn't for the readability so I
guess I just didn't say it in there.

Kris Katterjohn



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