On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 12:01:46 +0200, Matt Caswell wrote: > > The > > additional information you're talking about is something we currently > > provide the ERR_add_error_data() function for, and that together with > > the reason text (derived from the reason code) is the data the end > > user can reasonably get. It's up to whoever writes the error raising > > code to provide enough useful information. > > Yes, although in practice we don't currently do this (we very rarely add > additional explanatory text). Not sure if that is a problem with the API, our > coding standards, or our culture.
This is partly historical... ERR_add_error_data() has been around since the beginning of time, and it looks to me like it was designed in a time where varargs hadn't universally caught on yet (yes, there was a time before varargs, and it's appropriate to call that "the stone age"). In today's coding practices, I personally find ERR_add_error_data() clumsy to deal with, so I seldom use it. Also, being a separate function, it's easy to forget that it's there and useful. That's a reason to think that having all integrated in one function call that includes the flexibility of BIO_printf() probably would encourage producing better information. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
