I just stumbled on problems with MAYLOSEDATA3 while looking at other stuff... and I wonder, what exactly is it? Sorry, I've been out of it for quite a while, and I haven't dug through all talks there may have been, so I may be missing something.
Thing is, looking at the docs for the latest compiler (v7.3), there is no such warning message. There is MAYLOSEDATA and MAYLOSEDATA2, but no MAYLOSEDATA3. Is this a misunderstanding, a typo, or is there a secret newer HP CC that I don't know about? http://h71000.www7.hp.com/commercial/c/docs/decc_alpha_help_4.html#Ref504 In message <002401cf52e5$5791b8f0$06b52ad0$@com> on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 06:45:18 +0200, "Zoltan Arpadffy" <z...@polarhome.com> said: zoli> Right approach Steven. zoli> zoli> Mea culpa :( zoli> I am terribly sorry proposing ignorance of MAYLOSEDATA3 while not testing on zoli> older compilers. zoli> zoli> Thank you. zoli> Regards, zoli> Z zoli> zoli> -----Original Message----- zoli> From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] zoli> On Behalf Of Steven M. Schweda zoli> Sent: den 8 april 2014 05:12 zoli> To: openssl-dev@openssl.org zoli> Subject: Re: OpenSSL version 1.0.1g v. VMS zoli> zoli> From: "Dr. Stephen Henson" <st...@openssl.org> zoli> zoli> > Patch applied. Let me know of any problems. zoli> zoli> Thanks. Sadly, I forgot one refinement, which would keep the warning zoli> from the test out of the log. If I could talk you into smoothing over that zoli> blunder, then I'd be able to rest easy (for a while). zoli> zoli> --- ssl/ssl-lib.com;-1 2014-04-07 15:18:26 -0500 zoli> +++ ssl/ssl-lib.com 2014-04-07 18:26:49 -0500 zoli> @@ -1024,6 +1024,8 @@ zoli> $ THEN zoli> $! Not all compiler versions support MAYLOSEDATA3. zoli> $ OPT_TEST = "MAYLOSEDATA3" zoli> +$ DEFINE /USER_MODE SYS$ERROR NL: zoli> +$ DEFINE /USER_MODE SYS$OUTPUT NL: zoli> $ 'CC' /NOCROSS_REFERENCE /NOLIST /NOOBJECT - zoli> /WARNINGS = DISABLE = ('OPT_TEST', EMPTYFILE) NL: zoli> $ IF ($SEVERITY) zoli> zoli> Sorry about the extra bother. zoli> zoli> zoli> For the record (no action required (or even requested)), the only zoli> remaining compiler warnings were: zoli> zoli> if (timeleft.tv_sec < 0) ....................^ zoli> %CC-I-QUESTCOMPARE, In this statement, the unsigned expression zoli> "timeleft.tv_sec" is being compared with a relational operator to a zoli> constant whose value is not greater than zero. This might not be what you zoli> intended. zoli> at line number 310 in file zoli> ALP$DKC100:[UTILITY.SOURCE.OPENSSL.openssl-1_0_1g.crypto.bio]bss_dgram.c;1 zoli> zoli> Around here, time_t tends to be unsigned. zoli> zoli> zoli> if (*outlen <= 0) zoli> ............^ zoli> %CC-I-QUESTCOMPARE, In this statement, the unsigned expression "*outlen" zoli> is being compared with a relational operator to a constant whose value is zoli> not greater than zero. This might not be what you intended. zoli> at line number 180 in file zoli> ALP$DKC100:[UTILITY.SOURCE.OPENSSL.openssl-1_0_1g.engines.ccgost]gost94_keyx zoli> .c;1 zoli> zoli> Around here, size_t tends to be unsigned. zoli> zoli> zoli> if (size <= 0 || ((len = data[0])) != (size -1)) zoli> ............................^ %CC-I-QUESTCOMPARE, In this statement, the zoli> unsigned expression "size" is being compared with a relational operator to zoli> a constant whose value is not greater than zero. This might not be what zoli> you intended. zoli> at line number 1128 in file zoli> ALP$DKC100:[UTILITY.SOURCE.OPENSSL.openssl-1_0_1g.ssl]t1_lib.c;1 zoli> zoli> Here, "size" seems to be declared as unsigned: zoli> unsigned short size; zoli> making the "< 0" part of that test pointless everywhere. zoli> zoli> These are all Informational ("-I-") complaints, so they cause less zoli> trouble than a real warning ("-W-"). ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
