These two commits break other development branches where these are used
heavily. Andrew, could you please revert these for now.
commit e685c3d6563e1d6611e33a2b58706f94b40821ff
Author: Andrew Cagney
Date: Wed Apr 5 09:16:35 2017 -0400
pluto: inline single use of RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS
c
On 9 April 2017 at 05:50, Tuomo Soini wrote:
> These two commits break other development branches where these are used
> heavily. Andrew, could you please revert these for now.
Tuomo,
I'm a little confused. Are we discussing RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS,
RETURN_STF_FAILURE, or something else? On
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:50 -0400
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> I'm a little confused. Are we discussing RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS,
> RETURN_STF_FAILURE, or something else? On which branch is this
> causing problems? I looked at ikev2-fetch-ipseckey? Should I be
> looking elsewhere?
Those are/were
On 10 April 2017 at 12:45, Tuomo Soini wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:50 -0400
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> I'm a little confused. Are we discussing RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS,
>> RETURN_STF_FAILURE, or something else? On which branch is this
>> causing problems? I looked at ikev2-fetch-ipse
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 02:10:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Can we agree that the use of macros that conditionally return as a
> side effect are, in general, a bad idea and their use should not be
> encouraged?
why is it a bad idea? one reason I can think is running in gdb. I think it is
ea
On 12 April 2017 at 03:42, Antony Antony wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 02:10:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> Can we agree that the use of macros that conditionally return as a
>> side effect are, in general, a bad idea and their use should not be
>> encouraged?
>
> why is it a bad idea? one
