Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. apr_hints is a last resort. Actual tests like the AC_TRY_COMPILE()
that
Justin did are the right way to do it. We should always try to avoid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jerenkrantz01/05/31 19:58:32
Modified:.configure.in
Log:
Detect the wacky Linux-specific condition where pthread_rwlock_init is
defined, but the declaration of pthread_rwlock_t requires extra
#defines.
this is glibc-specific, not
these days, if you are in the u.s.:
all you need to do is send off an email
and a copy of the code in question to the correct
authorities.
that automatically grants authorisation to distribute
said code, under an open source license.
luke
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Sander Striker
Hi,
I've done a little bit of updating of the md4 code.
It adds some trivial error checking. Maybe someone
wants to complete this by adding the less trivial
error checks?
Second it adds a direct md4 computation function:
apr_status_t apr_md4(unsigned char digest[APR_MD4_DIGESTSIZE],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jerenkrantz01/06/04 10:21:56
Modified:crypto apr_md4.c
include apr_md4.h
Log:
Update error handling and add apr_md4 function.
Submitted by: Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reviewed by:Justin Erenkrantz
++1 for all of Jeff's -1's. We have a strict habit of NOT putting in this
kind of bogus checking.
Ryan
On 4 Jun 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jerenkrantz01/06/04 10:21:56
Modified:crypto apr_md4.c
include apr_md4.h
Log:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 02:25:18PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Justin, I'm sorry I didn't see this before.
yuck!
Okay, I'll back out the EINVAL stuff. Yeah, I thought it was hokey.
Sorry. I was more interested in the apr_md4/apr_md5 call and didn't
pay attention
Oops, sorry. I was thinking from the library point of view
where all errors should be handled. If the policy is segfaulting
when NULL pointers are passed that makes sense to me.
However, I would suggest putting in something like:
#ifdef APR_MD4_DEBUG
assert(context);
#endif
This way if you
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:55:37PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
However, I would suggest putting in something like:
#ifdef APR_MD4_DEBUG
assert(context);
#endif
-1 on asserts.
Walking out the door to lunch now. Sorry can't be more verbose, but my
policy on asserts is that they are
And, having release code differ from debug code is
really, really bad. Others might disagree with me
on this (I think some do). -- justin
Well, I certainly do. What is the point in having a
debug and release build then? Only that release is
stripped from all its symbols and possibly that the
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oops, sorry. I was thinking from the library point of view
where all errors should be handled. If the policy is segfaulting
when NULL pointers are passed that makes sense to me.
However, I would suggest putting in something like:
#ifdef
On this topic... note that the new SMS stuff has a bunch of argument
checking, too. All that needs to be yanked, too.
Cheers,
-g
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 11:35:30AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 02:25:18PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
On this topic... note that the new SMS stuff has a bunch of argument
checking, too. All that needs to be yanked, too.
I just sent Jeff an email like five minutes ago asking what he thought
about all that. I agree, it needs to go.
--Cliff
13 matches
Mail list logo
