On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:21 AM Илья Шипицин <chipits...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > пн, 16 дек. 2019 г. в 22:40, Rosen Penev <ros...@gmail.com>: >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Lukas Tribus <lu...@ltri.eu> wrote: >> > >> > Hello Rosen, >> > >> > > пн, 16 дек. 2019 г. в 12:07, Rosen Penev <ros...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >> > >> LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER evaluates to 0 under OpenSSL, making the >> > >> condition >> > >> always true. Check for the define before checking it. >> > >> > I cannot find this in the openssl sources, not in master and not in >> > the 1.1.1 branch. Please clarify where this is defined. >> Compile with -Wundef. Missing macros evaluate to 0. > > > I checked haproxy source, it does not use such compiler flag. Any reason for > introducing it ? > > if we want to make it first class citizen, maybe we should add it to proper > Makefile ? or to our CI ? > > assuming "undefined macros may ACCIDENTLY become equal to 0" scares me You serious? This is basic C. Undefined macros always evaluate to 0.
-Wundef only warns about it. > >> >> > >> > The SSL compatibility layer is already complex enough and needs >> > continuous adjustments, we need to understand the reason for changes >> > very well. Fast fixes are continually coming back to hunt us. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 08:19, Илья Шипицин <chipits...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > please have a look at https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/367 (it >> > > still misses germ part, I tried things like you send, but reg-tests >> > > fail. do you have travis-ci passed ?) >> > > also, there's a patch already sent, Lukas Tribus promised to review it >> > >> > Yeah, this one fell through the cracks. Give me a few days to catch up. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Lukas
