Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:18:52PM -0800, Michael McConville wrote: > > This is specified only irregularly, and people who don't know what a > > void return type means are beyond help anyway. > > > > This also adds a sentence specifying that X509_free(3) is NULL-safe, now > > that we've removed all NULL-checks for it. I should sweep through and > > add the sentence the rest of the NULL-safe LibreSSL *_free() functions > > soon. > > > > ok? > > I would keep the one about rewind, maybe make it even stronger. > > Using rewind is icky. It deliberately hides an error message.
Sounds good - I'll leave that one and remove the rest. Let me know if you have a proposed wording for the additional rewind(3) warning.