On Thu, 1 May 2014, Tomas Hajny wrote:
I had thought about this. In general, I try to take care of this concern,
since it is my concern as well.
What do you mean that you try to take care? Will you try to re-align
the two and e.g. send the latest improvements to Lukas Gebauer? I'm
ready to test proper working of my OS/2 support related changes added
earlier to Synapse once they get merged to the FPC tree. ;-)
I merged the synapse version to the FPC tree; that took some work.
The FPC tree differs meanwhile too much, it would break existing
code if we just copied over the file.
But do not forget that synapse is also meant to be compileable with Delphi.
That complicates matters somewhat.
Yes, it does to certain level. However, it isn't so bad in my point
of view:
1) I believe that Lukas would happily take care about maintaining
compatibility of provided changes to other compilers.
2) I don't see a big issue with keeping support for other compilers
inside a unit within the FPC tree as long as this part is maintained
by someone else.
3) I believe that it shouldn't be difficult to avoid using constructs
absolutely specific to FPC in a unit which was primarily meant as
means for accessing and using OpenSSL library functionality.
Yes, if you start from scratch: absolutely agreed.
It is too late for this, and that is why I didn't copy over.
As a side note:
I'm not really surprised to hear about the heartbleed bug: even C programmers
should get scared looking at the code. I was therefor glad to hear that the
BSD team started on a rewrite (libreSSL). Maybe it will result in cleaner code.
Maybe. Or it is wishful thinking. ;-)
Well: first reports are good, so there is hope.
And hope dies last...
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
