Author: Phil Pennock Date: 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
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
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: