wk at gnupg.org
Wed Jan 15 09:10:21 CET 2003
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:43:33 -0600, David Champion said:
> I thought Werner was ruling out this model, too. (He didn't mention
> anything about frequency or location of ifdefs, just that they were
> "generally unacceptable".) There certainly are other ways besides ifdefs
No. I see it the same way David explained it.
> to to machine-dependent code, but they seem messier yet.
I recently did a cleanup for Mutt, where some parts are hard to read
due to nested #ifdef HAVE_PGP and HAVE_SIME. At most place it was
easy to do it like this:
- #ifdef HAVE_PGP
- if (foo)
- bar ();
+ if (HAVE_PGP && foo)
+ bar ();
Given that HAVE_PGP is defined to 0 or 1. Because HAVE_PGP is a
constant, the compiler will either eliminate the entire construct or
eliminate the "HAVE_PGP &&" term. It is obvious that the code is
easier readable when you use these constructs with heavily nested
conditions. The compiler is far better in optimizing than a human in
Well, it does of course not work when there are functions which are
not available on some OSes - a silly stub function would do though.
More information about the Gnupg-devel