On 22/07/2015 13:14, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Jakob Bohm 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 wa
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Jakob Bohm 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 for C99 :) I gue
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 "one-si
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
> 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" 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.
>> 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 -Wmaybe-uni
>> 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
On 7/21/15, 17:37, "Ken Goldman" 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:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/0
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: https://mta.openssl.org/mailma
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 pe
On 21/07/15 21:44, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Matt Caswell 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
On 21/07/15 21:40, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> On 21/07/15 15:33, Tom Browder wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>>> I lied. After rebuilding gcc 5.2.0 and rechecking I get the following
>>> warnings from building 1.
> 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 Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Salz, Rich 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 think its the
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: https://mta.openssl.org/mai
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> On 21/07/15 15:33, Tom Browder wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>>> I lied. After rebuilding gcc 5.2.0 and rechecking I get the following
>>> warnings fro
> 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:
* https://gcc.gnu
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Matt Caswell 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 [-Wmayb
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> On 21/07/15 15:33, Tom Browder wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>> I lied. After rebuilding gcc 5.2.0 and rechecking I get the following
>> warnings from building 1.0.2d:
>>
>> d1_both.c: In function 'dtls1_retr
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, sa
>> ^
>> 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
On 21/07/15 15:33, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder 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
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Browder 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 rebuild
> open
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
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
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:47:00AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
>> Yes, and you're right about the function--weird
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> 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 ab
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Matt Caswell 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 'is_c
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
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 1105 of that file is in
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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
