This was actually discussed in the design phase, and I think we concluded that all arrays of this sort should be terminated rather than counted. I frankly cannot remember what the reasoning was behind this, and suspect it came down to personal taste.
However, whatever way we choose should be a consistent pattern. The worst we can do is to have some arrays counted while having others terminated with a special value. That's a recipe for confusion. (I'll note, though, that some arrays must be counted because there is no special terminating value to be had. As far as I can recall, though, this is uniquely for arrays of bytes) Cheers, Richard On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:04:21 +0200, Dr Paul Dale wrote: > > [1 <text/plain; utf-8 (quoted-printable)>] > [2 <text/html; utf-8 (quoted-printable)>] > We’re only starting out, so there isn’t any issue yet. I am wondering if > instead of terminating > out OSSL_PARAM arrays with an empty element, would it make sense to pass a > size and the array? > > I.e. changing this code sequence (from crypto/evp/digest.c): > > params[i++] = OSSL_PARAM_construct_size_t(OSSL_DIGEST_PARAM_XOFLEN, > &size, NULL); > params[i++] = OSSL_PARAM_construct_end(); > EVP_MD_CTX_set_params(ctx, params); > > into: > > params[i++] = OSSL_PARAM_construct_size_t(OSSL_DIGEST_PARAM_XOFLEN, > &size, NULL); > EVP_MD_CTX_set_params(ctx, i, params); > > For fixed arrays OSSL_NELEM would be used instead of the counter variable. > > There are downsides with both approaches of course and neither jumps out as > being obviously > superior. > > To me, at least, it looks like we’re going to have a lot of END’s throughout > the codebase. Saving > one line many times seems like a win. > > Pauli > -- > Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption > Phone +61 7 3031 7217 > Oracle Australia > > -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
