On 12/01/2017 12:19, Salz, Rich wrote:
It was a mix of what was done, and then a conscious decision to do things that
way.
As for the PR, well, maybe... We'd need to know details of which machine
"test/sanitytest.c" fails on, and how popular it is to see if it's worthwhile.
That would be inefficient churning given the number of changes to
replace conforming null pointer initialization with memset/calloc that
have gone in since this decision was made. The decision sticks in the
throat a bit for us standard nerds and old-timers who remember machines
where the null pointer was not all-bits-zero, but it's decades since I
heard of such a machine at large in the real world.
--
J. J. Farrell
Not speaking for Oracle
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
