apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: apr_sha1
Date Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:12:41 GMT
At 07:53 AM 12/5/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:58PM +0000, Thom May wrote:
>
>You don't say which you propose to change, but either way it's an API
>change not really worth bumping the major number for, I'd reckon. 
>There's an objection to making the md5 functions return void in STATUS,
>FWIW.

Note that on x86 platforms, in general, adding a return type
in place of a previous void type is a noop.  However, if you
code for testing the 'new' return type in 1.1 - the author is
free (by our version rules) to assume their code will work 
back in 1.0 - and the random garbage will cause their code to
hiccup if the test the rv.

But this is implementation specific, and it's quite possible
that on another platform, potentially mainframe compilers for
example, adding a return type may break the call/return stack
semantics.  This simply isn't a good idea until 2.0.

Bill



Mime
View raw message