[17476] in Kerberos_V5_Development
RE: Proposed platform assumption changes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simo Sorce)
Sat Jan 28 16:17:16 2012
From: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>
To: Danilo Almeida <dalmeida@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <01a601ccdde5$77bf0b40$673d21c0$@edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:17:09 -0500
Message-ID: <1327785429.13963.240.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: "'Nico Williams'" <nico@cryptonector.com>, krbdev@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 09:51 -0800, Danilo Almeida wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Everything you said made sense to me w/a couple of exceptions:
>
> 1) aborting malloc: I am opposed to this change. By having malloc
> abort, it makes any process using krb5 unable to deal with memory
> pressure. It is not universally acceptable to force processes to
> abort just because of memory pressure.
+1 on this.
> 2) field initializers: I think that it is important for krb5 to keep
> supporting MSVC. I would defer changing this until MS releases a
> compiler w/support for this. (I am not sure as to the current status
> and future support for this from MS. I know that they had some post
> w/changes in the next compiler (to be released this year, IIRC), but I
> did not find it.)
-1 on this, apparently MS has decided not to care for C99 so it would
mean waiting forever. I would strongly suggest researching if mingw is a
possible candidate, as MSVC is keeping us chained to a sub-optimal
feature set and preventing better code.
(Also mingw allows for easy cross compiling on a Linux machine so that
you don't have to run windows just to hand out binaries, not sure how
much work would be necessary to allow proper cross compiling but that
too would be really helpful).
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
