kris/boringssl
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Add a note in PORTING to ask us before adding ifdefs.

Browse Source 
People seem to like adding ifdefs for us for random initialization
functions that are cheap enough to add no-ops stubs for.

Change-Id: I7fb4e978e035329cd81d9bf33ab0d64fde6cc05f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/10280
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This commit is contained in:
David Benjamin 2016-08-11 11:04:15 -04:00 committed by Adam Langley
parent 25fe85b38c
commit 707720ca22
1 changed files with 3 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
PORTING.md
View File

@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ In some cases, BoringSSL-specific code may be necessary. In that case, the
`OPENSSL_IS_BORINGSSL` preprocessor macro may be used in `#ifdef`s. This macro
should also be used in lieu of the presence of any particular function to detect
OpenSSL vs BoringSSL in configure scripts, etc., where those are necessary.
Before using the preprocessor, however, contact the BoringSSL maintainers about
the missing APIs. If not an intentionally removed feature, BoringSSL will
typically add compatibility functions for convenience.
For convenience, BoringSSL defines upstream's `OPENSSL_NO_*` feature macros
corresponding to removed features. These may also be used to disable code which