Skip to content

20241116-fixes#8195

Merged
dgarske merged 1 commit intowolfSSL:masterfrom
douzzer:20241116-fixes
Nov 17, 2024
Merged

20241116-fixes#8195
dgarske merged 1 commit intowolfSSL:masterfrom
douzzer:20241116-fixes

Conversation

@douzzer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@douzzer douzzer commented Nov 17, 2024

add .wolfssl_known_macro_extras;

src/wolfio.c: #include <errno.h> if necessary;

wolfcrypt/src/asn.c: gate WOLFSSL_MSG_EX() uses on defined(DEBUG_WOLFSSL), for pedantic C89 compatibility (no variadic macros);

wolfssl/wolfcrypt/wc_port.h: refine setup for XFENCE().

supersedes #8157 and #8163

tested with wolfssl-multi-test.sh ... super-quick-check

Note that .wolfssl_known_macro_extras is used by a new subtest in wolfssl-multi-test.sh ... check-source-text that checks for misspelled macros. The file contains only those macros that are not #defined or #undefed anywhere else in the repo, but are used in macro expressions at least once.

src/wolfio.c: #include <errno.h> if necessary;

wolfcrypt/src/asn.c: gate WOLFSSL_MSG_EX() uses on defined(DEBUG_WOLFSSL), for pedantic C89 compatibility (no variadic macros);

wolfssl/wolfcrypt/wc_port.h: refine setup for XFENCE().
Comment thread src/wolfio.c
* wolfIO_TcpConnect() even if defined(WOLFSSL_NO_SOCK), which inhibits
* inclusion of errno.h by wolfio.h.
*/
#include <errno.h>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just for my understanding, why check for HAVE_ERRNO_H alone is not enough? what is the downside of including it every time it is includable?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was just narrowing the fix to avoid having to think about collateral damage on other targets/configs. Chances are it would have been harmless to include errno.h whenever defined(HAVE_ERRNO_H).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants