Re: Static-ify rsaenh/mpi?
Francois Gouget wrote: > The bug is with -O3 which is not the default and which I would not > personally care about. I'd be more open about maintenance issues. > My inclination would be to make the functions static. However, how to handle the comments is an issue to consider. Also, I probably made a mistake in moving functions around at the same time in order to avoid unnecessary forward references: perhaps that is best treated as a separate exercise. -- Andy.
Re: Static-ify rsaenh/mpi?
On Sat, 23 May 2009, Andrew Talbot wrote: [...] > I made a few of the functions in mpi.c static a while back, but stopped when > there was a bug report (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17406) > that seemed consequential but turned out to be apparently due to a bug gcc. The bug is with -O3 which is not the default and which I would not personally care about. I'd be more open about maintenance issues. -- Francois Gouget http://fgouget.free.fr/ RFC 2549: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2549.txt IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
Re: Static-ify rsaenh/mpi?
Francois Gouget wrote: > > So dlls/rsaenh/mpi.c defines 13 functions that are only used there. So > they could be made static by tweaking mpi.c and tomcrypt.h. > > However my understanding is that this files has been imported in Wine > from another project so maybe it's not a good idea to diverge much from > them. > > What do you think? > Should we just leave them as is? > Hi Francois, I made a few of the functions in mpi.c static a while back, but stopped when there was a bug report (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17406) that seemed consequential but turned out to be apparently due to a bug gcc. Also one of my patches to this file was rejected, which I didn't follow up, but it may have been due to the fact that there are comments to each function in both tomcrypt.h and mpi.c, and I tried to form combined versions in the latter. -- Andy.
