Re: [RFC PATCH] Move SHA-1 implementation selection into a header file
- From
Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
- Date
- Mar 14, 2017, 23:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1fce97df-7eb8-79d5-b96b-2086746bf19d@ramsayjones.plus.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq1stzio5b.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On 14/03/17 20:44, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> OK, then I'll queue this. The selection still goes to BASIC_CFLAGS > so the dependencies for re-compilation should be right, I'd think. > > -- >8 -- > From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> > Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:28:18 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] hash.h: move SHA-1 implementation selection into a header file > > Many developers use functionality in their editors that allows for quick > syntax checks, including warning about questionable constructs. This > functionality allows rapid development with fewer errors. However, such > functionality generally does not allow the specification of > project-specific defines or command-line options. > > Since the SHA1_HEADER include is not defined in such a case, developers > see spurious errors when using these tools. Furthermore, while using a > macro as the argument to #include is permitted by C11, it isn't > permitted by C89 and C99, and there are known implementations which > reject it.
C99 certainly allows a macro argument to #include (see, 6.10.2-4; there is also an example in 6.10.2-8).
I can't remember if it's allowed in C89/C90 (I think it is). I only have immediate access to the C99 and C11 standards (and I can't be bothered to search), so I can't say for sure.
ATB, Ramsay Jones