Fix check on SSL, MBEDTLS, WINSSL exclusivity #818
Conversation
By analyzing the blame information on this pull request, we identified @BurningEnlightenment and @vszakats to be potential reviewers |
@@ -118,6 +114,10 @@ USE_MBEDTLS = true | |||
MBEDTLS = $(WITH_MBEDTLS) | |||
!ENDIF | |||
|
|||
!IF ( "$(USE_SSL)"=="true" && "$(USE_WINSSL)"=="true" ) || ( "$(USE_SSL)"=="true" && "$(USE_MBEDTLS)"=="true" ) || ( "$(USE_MBEDTLS)"=="true" && "$(USE_WINSSL)"=="true" ) |
BurningEnlightenment
May 20, 2016
•
Contributor
That's a pretty long line, I suggest you wrap it like so:
!IF "$(USE_SSL)"=="true" && "$(USE_WINSSL)"=="true" \
|| "$(USE_SSL)"=="true" && "$(USE_MBEDTLS)"=="true" \
|| "$(USE_MBEDTLS)"=="true" && "$(USE_WINSSL)"=="true"
Otherwise well done! 
That's a pretty long line, I suggest you wrap it like so:
!IF "$(USE_SSL)"=="true" && "$(USE_WINSSL)"=="true" \
|| "$(USE_SSL)"=="true" && "$(USE_MBEDTLS)"=="true" \
|| "$(USE_MBEDTLS)"=="true" && "$(USE_WINSSL)"=="true"
Otherwise well done!
Jan-E
May 20, 2016
Author
Contributor
AFAIK, line wrapping like that does not work in Visual C makefiles
AFAIK, line wrapping like that does not work in Visual C makefiles
Jan-E
May 20, 2016
Author
Contributor
BTW: the parentheses around the && pairs are once again gone in your suggestion. They really should be there.
BTW: the parentheses around the && pairs are once again gone in your suggestion. They really should be there.
BurningEnlightenment
May 20, 2016
•
Contributor
I haven't checked the docs whether it is supposed to work with preprocessor directives, but it is supported for commands as documented here and I used it in practice without encountering any issues.
BTW: the parentheses around the && pairs are once again gone in your suggestion. They really should be there.
No they are unnecessary, because of a feature called operator precedence which is documented here.
I haven't checked the docs whether it is supposed to work with preprocessor directives, but it is supported for commands as documented here and I used it in practice without encountering any issues.
BTW: the parentheses around the && pairs are once again gone in your suggestion. They really should be there.
No they are unnecessary, because of a feature called operator precedence which is documented here.
Jan-E
May 20, 2016
Author
Contributor
The parentheses may be unnecessary, but for readability I would still leave them there.
The backslash followed by a line-end was indeed documented for commands I see now, even for VC9. But line-ends and Windows are messy stuff, so why not choose the safe solution? Better safe than sorry.
The parentheses may be unnecessary, but for readability I would still leave them there.
The backslash followed by a line-end was indeed documented for commands I see now, even for VC9. But line-ends and Windows are messy stuff, so why not choose the safe solution? Better safe than sorry.
Jan-E
May 20, 2016
Author
Contributor
Fine with me. Priority is that the building works.
Fine with me. Priority is that the building works.
bagder
May 20, 2016
•
Member
I (although I like to say we so that it doesn't sound so much like a dictatorship), like code that isn't terribly wide as it makes it easier to read so I'm for breaking the line up into several with backslash-continuations.
I (although I like to say we so that it doesn't sound so much like a dictatorship), like code that isn't terribly wide as it makes it easier to read so I'm for breaking the line up into several with backslash-continuations.
Jan-E
May 20, 2016
Author
Contributor
With or without the parentheses? If you break it up the logic is clearer, but nevertheless...
With or without the parentheses? If you break it up the logic is clearer, but nevertheless...
bagder
May 20, 2016
Member
I don't have a strong opinion on that but would leave that to you who're writing this, but my general preference is to add parentheses to help readers to not have to dig out any forgotten precedence rules to understand the order.
I don't have a strong opinion on that but would leave that to you who're writing this, but my general preference is to add parentheses to help readers to not have to dig out any forgotten precedence rules to understand the order.
Jan-E
May 20, 2016
Author
Contributor
Added this to the PR. Please merge.
Added this to the PR. Please merge.
thanks! |
BTW: building on VC9, VC11, VC14 * x86, x64 confirm that the patch is OK. |
See https://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2016-05/0129.html