On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 07:34:33AM -0800, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
[...]
> whose internals are generally only managed inside OpenSSL anyway. Eg. the
> caller may pass a const X509* pointer, but the caller is generally not
> supposed to be using the structure's internals directly anyway - the use
> of
%% Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bl> "Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>> It's worse than that: you have to provide two different data
>> structures internally. Unless you're going to cast internally, and
>> if so why bother to have two API's anyway? It quickly reaches the
>> point of
"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>
> %% Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Are you saying you just don't use const, or that you provide two
> >> different functions or two interfaces to the same function?
>
> bl> The latter.
>
> To me, that's much more ugly than simply casting it.
>
>
%% Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you saying you just don't use const, or that you provide two
>> different functions or two interfaces to the same function?
bl> The latter.
To me, that's much more ugly than simply casting it.
This is C, not C++, and we do the best we can
From: Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi there,
>
[snip]
> > > psmith> IMHO this is a legitimate reason to cast away const, and that
> > > psmith> the "const" notation on the arguments to lhash is useful for
> > > psmith> self-documentation purposes, at the least.
> > >
> > > Hmm, perhaps yo
Hi there,
I'm gonna spill my splein here because, just like Richard and Paul have
done now and in the past, I have suffered at the hands of a well-meaning
mission to constify parts of OpenSSL.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> >
> > From: "Paul D. S
uch a
string must make a local copy first.
My .02 cents worth...
- Original Message -
From: Lutz Jaenicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Constification
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:01:13PM +0100, Richard L
"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>
> %% Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> bl> By wrapping them with correctly declared functions.
>
> Are you saying you just don't use const, or that you provide two
> different functions or two interfaces to the same function?
The latter.
> I don't think eit
From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ben> No, you have two, a const and a non-const version.
Fine, I'll give it a shot. I do not believe in it, but I will.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chairman@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
Redakteur@Stacken
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ben> > >> Like strstr()...
> ben> >
> ben> > bl> Just because the C libraries are broken doesn't mean we should
> ben> > bl> break ours. In Apache we fix these rather than live with them.
> ben> >
> ben> > Ho
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:01:13PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> So, either:
>
> const char *correct_strstr(const char *s1, const char *s2)
> {
> return strstr(s1, s2);
> }
>
> or:
>
> char *correct_strstr(char *s1, const char *s2)
> {
> return st
%% Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bl> By wrapping them with correctly declared functions.
Are you saying you just don't use const, or that you provide two
different functions or two interfaces to the same function?
I don't think either of these two options is better than deconstifying
From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ben> > >> Like strstr()...
ben> >
ben> > bl> Just because the C libraries are broken doesn't mean we should
ben> > bl> break ours. In Apache we fix these rather than live with them.
ben> >
ben> > How exactly do you fix them?
ben>
ben> By wrapping them
"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>
> %% Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Like strstr()...
>
> bl> Just because the C libraries are broken doesn't mean we should
> bl> break ours. In Apache we fix these rather than live with them.
>
> How exactly do you fix them?
By wrapping them with
%% Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Like strstr()...
bl> Just because the C libraries are broken doesn't mean we should
bl> break ours. In Apache we fix these rather than live with them.
How exactly do you fix them?
--
---
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> psmith> This is similar to standard C functions which take a const
> psmith> char*, for example, and return a char* that points into the
> psmith> string.
>
> Like strstr()...
Just because the C libraries ar
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Constification
>
>
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> I sent this patch back on 05 May 2000, constifying crypto/lhash.
Your patch can only be accepted if you CC it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
OpenSSL Project
%% Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rl> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
psmith> This is similar to standard C functions which take a const
psmith> char*, for example, and return a char* that points into the
psmith> string.
rl> Like strstr()...
Yep.
From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
psmith> This is similar to standard C functions which take a const
psmith> char*, for example, and return a char* that points into the
psmith> string.
Like strstr()...
psmith> IMHO this is a legitimate reason to cast away const, and that
psmith> the "co
I sent this patch back on 05 May 2000, constifying crypto/lhash.
---
Note that this is a special case where you send data to the lhash
library to be stored; I declared that data to be const void* since the
lhash library d
From: Dr S N Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
drh> There's a couple of areas I noticed that could be constified. The EVP
drh> library's use of EVP_MD and EVP_CIPHER is the main one. I also noticed
drh> that the version strings for some reason weren't constified.
Thanks, I'll look at those next (after
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> I've become irritated enough with some functions not having const used
> properly (or at least what appears proper), so I've started working on
> bringing better use of const to OpenSSL, as some may already have
> noticed.
>
> This may, for a few days, br
>I've started working on bringing better use of const to OpenSSL
Huzzah.
>Also, this will bring about a few ugly casts in the ASN.1 macros or
>direct callers of them.
Perhaps something like
#define CONST(t, p) (const t)(p)
#define UNCONST(t, p) (t)(p)
As in
extern voi
24 matches
Mail list logo
