So dlls/rsaenh/mpi.c defines 13 functions that are only used there. So they could be made static by tweaking mpi.c and tomcrypt.h.
However my understanding is that this files has been imported in Wine from another project so maybe it's not a good idea to diverge much from them.
What do you think? Should we just leave them as is?
Francois Gouget wrote:
So dlls/rsaenh/mpi.c defines 13 functions that are only used there. So they could be made static by tweaking mpi.c and tomcrypt.h.
However my understanding is that this files has been imported in Wine from another project so maybe it's not a good idea to diverge much from them.
What do you think? Should we just leave them as is?
Hi Francois,
I made a few of the functions in mpi.c static a while back, but stopped when there was a bug report (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17406) that seemed consequential but turned out to be apparently due to a bug gcc.
Also one of my patches to this file was rejected, which I didn't follow up, but it may have been due to the fact that there are comments to each function in both tomcrypt.h and mpi.c, and I tried to form combined versions in the latter.
On Sat, 23 May 2009, Andrew Talbot wrote: [...]
I made a few of the functions in mpi.c static a while back, but stopped when there was a bug report (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17406) that seemed consequential but turned out to be apparently due to a bug gcc.
The bug is with -O3 which is not the default and which I would not personally care about. I'd be more open about maintenance issues.
Francois Gouget wrote:
The bug is with -O3 which is not the default and which I would not personally care about. I'd be more open about maintenance issues.
My inclination would be to make the functions static. However, how to handle the comments is an issue to consider. Also, I probably made a mistake in moving functions around at the same time in order to avoid unnecessary forward references: perhaps that is best treated as a separate exercise.
-
Andrew Talbot -
Francois Gouget