On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:42:20PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > > On 14/03/17 20:44, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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" > > 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. You're right. I only have access to N1124 (the C99 final draft), but it does allow that. I could have sworn it was new in C11. I'm pretty certain it isn't allowed in C89, but I don't have access to that standard. I know there have been reasonably standards-conforming compilers that have rejected it in the past, but I can't remember which ones (I think they were for proprietary Unices). Junio, do you want to amend the commit message before you merge it? -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204