Re: [exim-dev] Proposed change: compiler strictness issues

Top Page

Reply to this message
Author: Phil Pennock
To: Tom Kistner
CC: exim-dev, 'Tom Kistner'
Subject: Re: [exim-dev] Proposed change: compiler strictness issues
On 2011-01-16 at 16:49 +0100, Tom Kistner wrote:
> > For various reasons
> Please elaborate :)

(1) Stricter compiler flags catch bugs
(2) constness permits better compiler optimisation
(3) $work has a build framework geared for C++; Exim is imported as a
    third-party app, lots of default compiler flags have to be
    overriden.  By reducing the number of overrides needed, it becomes
    more maintainable for those colleagues who maintain the Exim import.

> >     Tom, is the invalidated header name logic actually used?  I'm
> >     thinking that the changes made to "tick" might just be to be able
> >     to see the problems when in a debugger, rather than used in the
> >     code?

> The logic is used in the code.
> While verifying, when iterating the headers, the implementation needs to
> keep track of which headers have been seen, but it's possible for header
> names to appear several times, so each sig keeps a copy of the header list
> for "ticking off".
> While signing, only a simple match against a static list is done.
> So it would be possible to write two functions, but it would duplicate some
> code.

I don't think we need to. The code is working, we can live without the
extra check available in gcc. Are you happy with the other changes in