gh-Mbed-TLS/mbedtls-framework
Watch
1
0
Fork
You've already forked mbedtls-framework
 0
Code Issues 39 Pull requests 42 Releases Activity

Fix preprocessor logic for standalone TF-PSA-Crypto #277

Open
bensze01 wants to merge 1 commit from bensze01/undef into main
pull from: bensze01/undef
merge into: gh-Mbed-TLS:main
Conversation 1 Commits 1 Files changed 2 +17 -10
bensze01 commented 2026-02-05 07:52:53 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Description

Fix preprocessor logic for standalone TF-PSA-Crypto

PR checklist

Please add the numbers (or links) of the associated pull requests for consuming branches. You can omit branches where this pull request is not needed.

  • TF-PSA-Crypto PR provided # | not required because:
  • development PR provided # | not required because:
  • 3.6 PR provided # | not required because:
## Description Fix preprocessor logic for standalone TF-PSA-Crypto ## PR checklist Please add the numbers (or links) of the associated pull requests for consuming branches. You can omit branches where this pull request is not needed. - [ ] **TF-PSA-Crypto PR** provided # | not required because: - [ ] **development PR** provided # | not required because: - [ ] **3.6 PR** provided # | not required because:
gilles-peskine-arm (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2026-03-05 02:46:01 -06:00
tests/include/test/psa_crypto_helpers.h
gilles-peskine-arm (Migrated from github.com) commented 2026-03-05 02:46:01 -06:00

I can't think of a good reason to write !defined(MBEDTLS_VERSION_MAJOR). Why would we need to do something special when not building Mbed TLS? If you mean a condition to apply to TF-PSA-Crypto, use defined(TF_PSA_CRYPTO_VERSION_MAJOR).

There are a few places where we are currently using !defined(MBEDTLS_VERSION_MAJOR). They're left behind from a time when we had alreday made TF-PSA-Crypto a separately testable entity but not yet given it version macros. That was just a planning mistake, and we should be removing those !defined(MBEDTLS_VERSION_MAJOR) and using the TF_PSA_CRYPTO_xxx macro now.

I can't think of a good reason to write `!defined(MBEDTLS_VERSION_MAJOR)`. Why would we need to do something special when not building Mbed TLS? If you mean a condition to apply to TF-PSA-Crypto, use `defined(TF_PSA_CRYPTO_VERSION_MAJOR)`. There are a few places where we are currently using `!defined(MBEDTLS_VERSION_MAJOR)`. They're left behind from a time when we had alreday made TF-PSA-Crypto a separately testable entity but not yet given it version macros. That was just a planning mistake, and we should be removing those `!defined(MBEDTLS_VERSION_MAJOR)` and using the `TF_PSA_CRYPTO_xxx` macro now.
This pull request is broken due to missing fork information.
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u origin 'bensze01/undef:bensze01/undef'
git switch 'bensze01/undef'

Merge

Merge the changes and update on Forgejo.

Warning: The "Autodetect manual merge" setting is not enabled for this repository, you will have to mark this pull request as manually merged afterwards.

git switch 'main'
git merge --no-ff 'bensze01/undef'
git switch 'bensze01/undef'
git rebase 'main'
git switch 'main'
git merge --ff-only 'bensze01/undef'
git switch 'bensze01/undef'
git rebase 'main'
git switch 'main'
git merge --no-ff 'bensze01/undef'
git switch 'main'
git merge --squash 'bensze01/undef'
git switch 'main'
git merge --ff-only 'bensze01/undef'
git switch 'main'
git merge 'bensze01/undef'
git push origin 'main'
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
approved
Design and code approved - may be waiting for CI or backports

  
bug
Something isn't working

  
dependencies
Pull requests that update a dependency file

  
DO-NOT-MERGE

   
enhancement
New feature or request

  
good-first-issue
Good for newcomers

  
help-wanted
This issue is not being actively worked on, but PRs welcome.

  
historical-reviewed
Reviewed & agreed to keep legacy PR/issue

  
historical-reviewing
Currently reviewing (for legacy PR/issues)

  
needs-adoption
stalled PR that someone should pick up and complete

  
needs-ci
Needs to pass CI tests

  
needs-design-approval

   
needs-info
An issue or PR which needs further info from the reporter / author

  
needs-preceding-pr
Requires another PR to be merged first

  
needs-review
Every commit must be reviewed by at least two team members.

  
needs-reviewer
This PR needs someone to pick it up for review

  
needs-work

   
priority-high
High priority - will be reviewed soon

  
priority-low
Low priority - this may not receive review soon

  
priority-medium
Medium priority - this can be reviewed as time permits

  
priority-scheduled
This PR is big - it will require time to be scheduled for review

  
priority-very-high
Highest priority - prioritise this over other review work

  
single-reviewer
This PR qualifies for having only one reviewer

  
size-l
Estimated task size: large (2w+)

  
size-m
Estimated task size: medium (~1w)

  
size-s
Estimated task size: small (~2d)

  
size-xs
Estimated task size: extra small (a few hours at most)

No labels
approved
bug
dependencies
DO-NOT-MERGE
enhancement
good-first-issue
help-wanted
historical-reviewed
historical-reviewing
needs-adoption
needs-ci
needs-design-approval
needs-info
needs-preceding-pr
needs-review
needs-reviewer
needs-work
priority-high
priority-low
priority-medium
priority-scheduled
priority-very-high
single-reviewer
size-l
size-m
size-s
size-xs
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
gh-Mbed-TLS/mbedtls-framework!277
No description provided.