Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Yes I could do that, no reason not to, and as you point out it would
>> reduce duplication.
>>
>> I wrote it like this trying to preserve the indentation with/without
>> the macro being true, thinking someone would have an issue with it
>> otherwise.
>>
>> I also thought just now that perhaps if it were changed the code like
>> that it would warn under -Wmisleading-indentation, but at least on gcc
>> that's not the case, it knows not to warn in the presence of macros.
>>
>> Unless someone feel strongly otherwise / can think of a good reason
>> for why not, I'll change it as you suggest in the next version.
>>
>> Thanks for the review!
>
> ...and if I do change it do others think this is something that
> warrants a comment & some whitespace padding? I.e.:
>
> @@ -378,8 +392,17 @@ static int pcre1match(struct grep_pat *p, const
> char *line, const char *eol,
> if (eflags & REG_NOTBOL)
> flags |= PCRE_NOTBOL;
>
> +#ifdef PCRE_CONFIG_JIT
> + if (p->pcre1_jit_on)
> + ret = pcre_jit_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line,
> + eol - line, 0, flags, ovector,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(ovector), p->pcre1_jit_stack);
> + else
> +#endif
> + /* PCRE_CONFIG_JIT !p->pcre1_jit_on else branch */
> ret = pcre_exec(p->pcre1_regexp, p->pcre1_extra_info, line, eol - line,
> 0, flags, ovector, ARRAY_SIZE(ovector));
> +
> if (ret < 0 && ret != PCRE_ERROR_NOMATCH)
> die("pcre_exec failed with error code %d", ret);
> if (ret > 0) {
If we MUST have this #ifdef/#endif in-line in this function, then
tolerating funny indentation in the else clause I think is an
accepted common practice that may not need an extra comment.
But I wonder if the resulting code of this function may become
simpler to follow if we remove #ifdef/#endif from it, and instead
have this function call a helper (which may itself have #ifdef, or
maybe #ifdef/#else/#endif may have two implementations)?