ср, 4 нояб. 2020 г. в 20:43, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 08:37:12PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > code full of "ifdefs" is not a mess. > > Yes it is, really. It's very hard to visually follow execution there. And > with your cleanups it's already way better. > > > the mess is to depend on OPENSSL_VERSION, every fork has it's own opinion > > what its own version should be. > > Agreed! > > > as far as we depend on macros we are safe. > > Yes definitely. > > > I'm ok to move that condition to openssl-compat.h if you think it is > better > > I think it will be better, it simplifies the conditions and that's exactly > the purpose of openssl-compat, to abstract what really deserves to be > abstracted. And quite frankly when it's just one library renaming a macro > for a NIH syndrome, that perfectly fits in this purpose :-) > > But if you don't have time to do it now for this one, I won't object > anyway, > so no worries. I was just suggesting the direction to follow based on a > concrete example. > > if you think to regroup define into openssl-compat.h, I suggest to do it on the fly. no need to send new patch
> Thanks! > Willy >
