From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: libnettle/libhogweed WIP Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:54:38 +0300 Message-ID: <83podoqchd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83tw5pg1q3.fsf@gnu.org> <87zifhulc2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h91og80k.fsf@gnu.org> <87pogbuhoe.fsf@lifelogs.com> <834lxndmd9.fsf@gnu.org> <87efwrug6z.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r30qu5av.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874lxmtxyy.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r30prvwt.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8337d4csez.fsf@gnu.org> <87r30nq9el.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83inlyc1k2.fsf@gnu.org> <87inlyrfni.fsf@lifelogs.com> <837f2eb845.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziedpyy1.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83d1b75u8a.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2znntaq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87o9u8q4a5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83tw3xbklg.fsf@gnu.org> <87zictm415.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1498668914 20185 195.159.176.226 (28 Jun 2017 16:55:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 28 18:55:10 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dQGF5-0004PT-Cg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:55:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34364 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQGF5-0001e3-Iz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:55:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58924) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQGEz-0001dw-Qb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:54:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQGEw-0007on-M1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:54:57 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:48551) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQGEw-0007oZ-IC; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:54:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1607 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dQGEv-0007Y9-U7; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:54:54 -0400 In-reply-to: <87zictm415.fsf@lifelogs.com> (message from Ted Zlatanov on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:58:30 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216036 Archived-At: > From: Ted Zlatanov > Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:58:30 -0400 > > There is only one major TODO I can't resolve: I asked for help before, > and still can't make the autoconf code detect the GnuTLS functions > individually. Doesn't something like AC_CHECK_FUNCS do the job? If not, why not? (In general, the Autoconf manual should be able to answer these questions.) > The other TODO below maybe can be answered here? Should I remove it or > leave it? > > // TODO: switch this to use a resize_string_data() function when > // that's provided in the C core, to avoid the extra copy. Remove it. > EZ> You don't need a 'return' after calling 'error' (here and elsewhere), > EZ> as the latter doesn't return. > > I got warnings for it in a few places so I added those returns > consistently. Which warnings and at what places? If the function doesn't return, it should be marked _Noreturn, as we do in other places. Maybe that was your original problem. > I removed them, but it's not my favorite thing to omit the braces, > especially in the > > if a > b > else if c > d > else > e > > situation. Do you think I should reintroduce them in those places? We don't use braces in such situations, unless there are comments that make the blocks larger than 1 line.