On 3 December 2015 at 12:17, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 11:50 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> The RVCT compiler chokes on a couple of issues in upstream OpenSSL >> that >> can be confirmed to be non-issues by inspection. So just ignore these >> warnings entirely. > > I still maintain this needs a reference to bug reports — either > *compiler* bugs, if the compiler is just being entirely stupid, or > OpenSSL RT tickets. > > Or both, since it's possible to work around it compiler issues in the > source code even if it's actually the *compiler* at fault. > > But in no circumstance is it acceptable for such a patch to reference > *neither* a compiler nor a source bug, surely? >
I don't think OpenSSL upstream is at fault here in any of the cases, and I definitely would not recommend obfuscating OpenSSL to make RVCT happy even if some instances could be easily solved by adding a redundant zero initializer, since such changes often do more evil than good. So that leaves reporting bugs to ARM regarding RVCT. I guess that should be an option, perhaps Eugene can take this up, being an actual paying ARM customer? Note than I work for Linaro, not for ARM (unlike Leif, who is an ARM employee that is seconded to Linaro), so of the people involved, I am definitely not in the best position to chase this. Thanks, Ard. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
