On 1/22/19 2:58 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 06:40:05PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On 1/18/19 1:53 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Going in circles trying to compile 1.1.1a with strict C99 and no
optimizations and with a ready to debug and single step resultant
library.
Ignore all this. Thou shalt not C99 here.
Our code base is currently C89/C90, with some extenions, but things
like gcc default to something like "gnu99", "gnu11" or "gnu17".
And we actually make use of some of those extensions not in C89.
I tend to look at anything 'gnu-foo' as clearly non-standard but still
very very popular and thus defacto standard. Whatever that means. :-)
The ones I know about:
- asm(): Most of those should go away if you define PEDANTIC.
No need with the Oracle Studio compilers. Just use c99 and strict
CFLAGS and watch it utter the endless complaints.
I think the only exception is code we compile when gcc is used.
- strdup() and strcasecmp() which are in POSIX, but not in C
Yep .. that thing.
- Setting the mutex type, which seems to be UNIX98 or XOPEN2K8
- isascii: XOPEN
- usleep: Was in POSIX, has been replaced by nanosleep
- long long: Since C99
Then we also use things like int32_t, but define the type ourself
if the compiler is C89. We detect C11 support for atomics.
Anyway, if you have a good patch to remove things that are no
longer in a standard, and it also works with older systems, I suggest
submit a patch.
I think that Rich Salz has already weighed in on this battle and the
code base is C89 clean. A leap to C99 compliance may not be on anyones
horizon at all and I am not sure how much work would be needed. Curious
to look at it however.
Dennis Clarke
ps: see excellent email from Michael Wojcik Fri Jan 18 01:25:10 UTC 2019
where "strcasecmp is a heresy" :
https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/2019-January/009735.html
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
