From 707720ca222b915defab7dc315d1d78239569202 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Benjamin Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:04:15 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Add a note in PORTING to ask us before adding ifdefs. 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 --- PORTING.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/PORTING.md b/PORTING.md index 6b011d7d..30d774ca 100644 --- a/PORTING.md +++ b/PORTING.md @@ -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