Hi Simon,
IIRC, this patch is waiting for a new version to take care of the static
const as
agreed below:
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Selva <selva.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Simon Rozman <si...@rozman.si> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > But then making the variable static just to keep a valid pointer beyond
>> the
>> > current block local looks like a kludge. For me seeing static applied
>> to a
>> > variable scoped to a block is just confusing and unusual style. Think
>> of this: if
>> > you remove that static the code may still build and even work on some
>> > compilers depending on optimization level etc. and mysteriously fail on
>> some
>> > occasions. From that one could either conclude a static qualifier is
>> required
>> > her or the variable is wrongly scoped. I think the latter conclusion is
>> the 'right'
>> > one and static is a misuse.
>> >
>> > As for the combination 'static const ...', it has a place and that is
>> for constants
>> > defined outside functions to limit the scope of an otherwise global
>> const to
>> > that of the compilation unit.
>> >
>> > It may be just me.
>>
>> Not necessarily. It may be just *me*. :)
>>
>> Anyway, you got me convinced and I shall move those structs from data
>> segment to stack in the next version of the patch.
>
>
> Glad that I don't have to invent an Acked-with-reservations: tag :)
>
I suppose a v4 is coming.
Thanks,
Selva
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
