[17495] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Proposed platform assumption changes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Raeburn)
Tue Jan 31 17:28:17 2012
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <01a601ccdde5$77bf0b40$673d21c0$@edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:28:14 -0500
Message-Id: <145D4B4A-F4A8-4A35-98C2-E6066EF5F33D@mit.edu>
To: Danilo Almeida <dalmeida@mit.edu>
Cc: "krbdev@mit.edu List" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2057679580=="
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
--===============2057679580==
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_161792EE-8B1F-4452-B656-3927CA39139D";
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
--Apple-Mail=_161792EE-8B1F-4452-B656-3927CA39139D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
On Jan 28, 2012, at 12:51, Danilo Almeida wrote:
> 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.
I agree with this. Checking for allocation failures in N different =
places and freeing up all the right stuff in each one is a pain, but =
this easy out isn't always going to be acceptable.
> 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.)
How many years have we been waiting so far? How many more should we =
wait before giving up on them in exasperation? I believe I read =
somewhere some Q&A or something from Microsoft where they said that they =
were adding support for things their customers wanted, either C99 =
features or equivalent functionality -- where the latter means it still =
may not be C99 compliant when they get done with it.
The 2011 C standard has been published, and we're still waiting for the =
12-year-old spec to get implemented? Are there any other major =
platforms that don't have complete or nearly-complete C99 support these =
days?
I think Sam's right: There are certain requirements for the libraries we =
produce, but that doesn't necessarily imply that MSVC has to be useable =
for building them. It's probably time to reevaluate the options again.
Ken=
--Apple-Mail=_161792EE-8B1F-4452-B656-3927CA39139D--
--===============2057679580==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
--===============2057679580==--
