bss_dgram changes and Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-22 Thread Michael Richardson
I've continued to work on: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5257 I'm summarizing this here because the pull request is now very convoluted to follow. a) It's rebased to openssl-3.1-dev, although now 30 commits behind head since last week, but should be easy to bring it to the tip

Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-20 Thread Michael Richardson
Hi, could/should someone run sort on util/other.syms? signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-18 Thread Michael Richardson
Tomas Mraz wrote: >> Perhaps my use of:     IF[{- !$disabled{dgram} -}] >> >> is wrong in some way. > You've included the bio_write_test and bio_read_test also on the bare > PROGRAMS{noinst} assignment. You need to remove them from there. > Interestingly the http_test is

Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-18 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 05:24 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Tomas Mraz wrote: >     >> Should the test *ALSO* ifdef itself out if OPENSSL_NO_DGRAM is >     >> defined? > >     > No, that's not necessary as they won't be built at all with the >     > build.info change above. > > I didn't fi

Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-18 Thread Michael Richardson
Tomas Mraz wrote: >> Should the test *ALSO* ifdef itself out if OPENSSL_NO_DGRAM is >> defined? > No, that's not necessary as they won't be built at all with the > build.info change above. I didn't find this to be true. The source file still got built, and linked, and that fail

Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-17 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 10:17 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Tomas Mraz wrote: >     >> I figured out that this means that ./Configure should have > "no-dgram" >     >> appended to it.  That seems to result in OPENSSL_NO_DGRAM > being >     >> defined. >     >> >     >> My test case naturally

Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-17 Thread Michael Richardson
Tomas Mraz wrote: >> I figured out that this means that ./Configure should have "no-dgram" >> appended to it.  That seems to result in OPENSSL_NO_DGRAM being >> defined. >> >> My test case naturally does not compile for that. >> >> Should my test case just be surrounde

Re: run-checker NO DGRAM and test cases

2022-03-17 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Wed, 2022-03-16 at 16:20 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > One of the run checkers is marked "no dgram". >   > https://github.com/mcr/openssl/runs/5563998914?check_suite_focus=true > > I figured out that this means that ./Configure should have "no-dgram" > appended to it.  That seems to res