[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ahh, I misunderstood what you meant by macros.
> I thought you meant things like:
> #define sk_X509_push(sk, v) \
> sk_push((stack*)sk, (char*)v)
> Which is, of course, sub-optimal. Having a bunch of
> one-line wrapper functions isn't unreasonable.
Would I do something suboptimal? :-)
> On the other hand, since stack.[ch] are so small,
> perhaps you should just turn stack.c into a set
> of #define's?
Possibly. Or inline them (which works on gcc even for C programs, I
believe).
I was leaving that kind of fine-tuning for later. Note that STACKs use
the heap, and hence are not exactly high-performance objects anyway,
except in the two existing #defined functions, sk_num and sk_value.
Unfortunately, #defineing those makes them not type-safe. I was
considering having them #defined in non-DEBUG mode...
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
