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.

Reply via email to