> > So either, this is a bug in the way openldap uses the ber_len_t type, we > have a mistake in our logic, or something else hokey is going on. > > I would like to update this to: > > if ( (tag != LBER_END_OF_SEQORSET) && (len == 0) && (*fstr != NULL) ) > > Or even: > > if ( (tag != LBER_END_OF_SEQORSET) && (*fstr != NULL) ) > > What do you think of this assessment given the ber_len_t type?
Looks like it's intentional by the openldap team. There are some other areas for this problem. Specifically: int ber_printf(BerElement *ber, const char *fmt, ...); lber.h:79:#define LBER_ERROR ((ber_tag_t) -1) We check if (ber_printf(...) != LBER_ERROR) Of course, we can't satisfy either. We can't cast the LBER_ERROR from uint -> int without changing the value of it, and we can't cast the output of ber_printf from int -> uint, again, without potentially changing the value of it. So it seems that the openldap library may be impossible to satisfy the gcc type checking with -Wsign-compare. For now, I may just avoid these in my fixes, as it seems like a whole set of landmines I want to avoid ... -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Brisbane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
