On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Jakob Bohm jb-open...@wisemo.com wrote:
On 22/07/2015 01:21, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in 2015.
Visual Studio is often used on Windows, and it is not C99.
Oh my, I was not aware it was still struggling
On 22/07/2015 01:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Like I said, its learning to play well with your tools :)
Well I think what your saying is that we should play well with other
people's tools! My tools (and presumably the rest of the dev team's as
well) don't report this warning.
Ah, OK. So its being
On 22/07/2015 01:21, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in 2015.
Visual Studio is often used on Windows, and it is not C99.
Oh my, I was not aware it was still struggling for C99 :) I guess
Microsoft is still putting their energies into the
On 22/07/2015 13:14, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Jakob Bohm jb-open...@wisemo.com wrote:
On 22/07/2015 01:21, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in 2015.
Visual Studio is often used on Windows, and it is not C99.
Oh my,
On 21/07/15 15:33, Tom Browder wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder tom.brow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
That surely means that you're compiling some patched version or
not even 1.0.2d.
No, it's the correct version.
But just now,
^
d1_both.c: In function 'dtls1_retransmit_message':
d1_both.c:1261:9: warning: 'save_write_sequence' may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
memcpy(s-s3-write_sequence, save_write_sequence,
^
This one is entirely
On 21/07/15 20:54, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
^
d1_both.c: In function 'dtls1_retransmit_message':
d1_both.c:1261:9: warning: 'save_write_sequence' may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
memcpy(s-s3-write_sequence,
If it's a simple matter of adding =0 in the declaration, we should just fix
the darn thing.
--
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Matt Caswell m...@openssl.org wrote:
On 21/07/15 20:54, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
^
d1_both.c: In function 'dtls1_retransmit_message':
d1_both.c:1261:9: warning: 'save_write_sequence' may be used
uninitialized in this function
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Tom Browder tom.brow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Matt Caswell m...@openssl.org wrote:
On 21/07/15 15:33, Tom Browder wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder tom.brow...@gmail.com wrote:
I lied. After rebuilding gcc 5.2.0
I'm not real current with C so I'm not in a great position to
criticize, but can't those warnings (if there is truly no problem) be
eliminated (at least in gcc) with a pragma?
Sadly, no.
GCC pragmas to manage warnings are almost useless. Its been broken for
years. See:
*
From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
Of Kaduk, Ben
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 17:06
On 7/21/15, 17:37, Ken Goldman kgold...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On 7/21/2015 6:20 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
If it's a simple matter of adding =0 in the declaration, we should just fix
the darn thing.
You know... if OpenSSL changes its policies so that C99 is the
baseline, then you get to initialize all variables when declared.
I
On 21/07/15 21:44, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Matt Caswell m...@openssl.org wrote:
On 21/07/15 20:54, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
^
d1_both.c: In function 'dtls1_retransmit_message':
d1_both.c:1261:9: warning: 'save_write_sequence' may be
On 7/21/2015 6:20 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in 2015.
Visual Studio is often used on Windows, and it is not C99.
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe:
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in 2015.
Visual Studio is often used on Windows, and it is not C99.
Oh my, I was not aware it was still struggling for C99 :) I guess
Microsoft is still putting their energies into the one-size, tablet
interface known as Windows 8,
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in 2015.
We agreed to support Netware; does it have C99? Anyone know?
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
On 21/07/15 21:40, Tom Browder wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Matt Caswell m...@openssl.org wrote:
On 21/07/15 15:33, Tom Browder wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder tom.brow...@gmail.com wrote:
I lied. After rebuilding gcc 5.2.0 and rechecking I get the following
It may be correct in this case, but simple matter of can sometimes
mask a real problem. If the function expected the value to be set
earlier, but the analysis tool finds a path where it's not set, there
could be a more real bug.
Is zero the right value? Why not, 1, -1, or 42?
=0 may be
On 7/21/15, 17:37, Ken Goldman kgold...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On 7/21/2015 6:20 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
For the stragglers, I don't think its a stretch to ask C99 in 2015.
Visual Studio is often used on Windows, and it is not C99.
It is getting closer, though:
Like I said, its learning to play well with your tools :)
Well I think what your saying is that we should play well with other
people's tools! My tools (and presumably the rest of the dev team's as
well) don't report this warning.
Ah, OK. So its being reported in GCC 5.1 via
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder tom.brow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
That surely means that you're compiling some patched version or
not even 1.0.2d.
No, it's the correct version.
But just now, after building gcc-5.2.0 and using it to
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
openssl-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
openssl-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:47:00AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
Yes,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:47:00AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
I get the following warnings from compiling the latest openssl with gcc 4.7.2:
ecp_nistp224.c: In function 'batch_mul':
ecp_nistp224.c:1105:29: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
[-Warray-bounds]
In my copy of 1.0.2d,
On 09/07/15 15:47, Tom Browder wrote:
I get the following warnings from compiling the latest openssl with gcc 4.7.2:
ec_key.c: In function 'EC_KEY_set_public_key_affine_coordinates':
ec_key.c:369:26: warning: variable 'is_char_two' set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
I don't get
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Matt Caswell m...@openssl.org wrote:
On 09/07/15 15:47, Tom Browder wrote:
I get the following warnings from compiling the latest openssl with gcc
4.7.2:
ec_key.c: In function 'EC_KEY_set_public_key_affine_coordinates':
ec_key.c:369:26: warning: variable
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
openssl-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:47:00AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
...
ecp_nistp224.c: In function 'batch_mul':
ecp_nistp224.c:1105:29: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
...
In my copy of 1.0.2d, line
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
openssl-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:47:00AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
...
ecp_nistp224.c: In function 'batch_mul':
ecp_nistp224.c:1105:29: warning: array
28 matches
Mail list logo
