AW: Cleaning up include file inconsistencies
A good idea just occurred to me. I will rework #9274 and create two new pull requests from it: - PR 1: restructure the internal headers and fix the internal include guards. - PR 2: fix the include guards for the public header files PR 1 could be backported to 1.1.1 which would be advantageous for cherry-picking. That's important IMHO because 1.1.1 is an LTS release. PR 2 would only go to master. What do you think about it? Matthias
AW: Cleaning up include file inconsistencies
> > Me, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be clearer if we renamed > > crypto/include/internal -> crypto/include/crypto, and thereby did > > this: > > > > #include "crypto/evp.h" > > > > That, to me, is much clearer than the "_int" suffix. > > This sounds like an excellent idea to me. Wouldn't it even be better to move `crypto/include/internal` to `include/internal/crypto` and include it as #include "internal/crypto/evp.h" this would have the advantage that _all_ shared include files can be found in the `include` folder, the public ones inside `include/openssl` and the internal ones in `include/internal`. Also, it would be a very consistent structure and easy to remember. #include "internal/foo.h" /* shared between libcrypto and libssl */ #include "internal/crypto/bar.h" /* shared by libcrypto modules only */ #include "internal/ssl/bar.h"/* shared by libssl modules only */ ... and so on: ... #include "internal/engines/baz.h" /* shared by engine modules */ Matthias
Re: Cleaning up include file inconsistencies
> > ./crypto/include/internal/store.h > > ./crypto/include/internal/store_int.h > ... > > I have *no* idea why there are two header files. I must have > forgotten about one of them when creating the other... > > They should be merged into one. Ok, I can take care of it. Matthias
Re: AW: Cleaning up include file inconsistencies
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 12:20:11 +0200, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > > > Having such a finegrained distinction is not the problem, but (at least to > > me) > > it is not entirely clear which include file goes into which directory. > > Note: the high score seems to lie at four different header files for the same > package, > not counting the generated error header file: > > ~/src/openssl$ find -name 'store*.h' > ... > ./crypto/include/internal/store.h > ./crypto/include/internal/store_int.h ... I have *no* idea why there are two header files. I must have forgotten about one of them when creating the other... They should be merged into one. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
Re: Cleaning up include file inconsistencies
Hello, I'd like either _lcl.h or _local.h. _locl.h seems weird to me :) On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Dr. Matthias St. Pierre < matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > pull request #9274 started out as a task to clean up inconsistencies in > the naming > of the include guards. It turned out that there are also some > inconsistencies in the > naming of the include files. > > Please take a look at the general discussion starting at > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9274#issuecomment-508824668 > between Bernd and me. > > In particular, in > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9274#issuecomment-508826903 and > following the question was raised whether all local `*_lcl.h` files should > be renamed > to `*_locl.h` for consistency reasons, and the pros and cons discussed. > The latter choice was suggested by a source tree vote: > >~/src/openssl$ find -name '*_lcl.h' | wc -l >19 > ~/src/openssl$ find -name '*_locl.h' | wc -l > 30 > > What's your opinion about renaming of those files? > > Matthias > > -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
Cleaning up include file inconsistencies
Hi all, pull request #9274 started out as a task to clean up inconsistencies in the naming of the include guards. It turned out that there are also some inconsistencies in the naming of the include files. Please take a look at the general discussion starting at https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9274#issuecomment-508824668 between Bernd and me. In particular, in https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9274#issuecomment-508826903 and following the question was raised whether all local `*_lcl.h` files should be renamed to `*_locl.h` for consistency reasons, and the pros and cons discussed. The latter choice was suggested by a source tree vote: ~/src/openssl$ find -name '*_lcl.h' | wc -l 19 ~/src/openssl$ find -name '*_locl.h' | wc -l 30 What's your opinion about renaming of those files? Matthias
