Merge byte change (::byte → CryptoPP::byte)

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeffrey Walton

unread,
Jul 19, 2017, 6:35:17 AM7/19/17
to Crypto++ Users
Hi Everyone,

I'd like to merge the byte change discussed at "Issue 442, Test C++17 byte change with dry runs from various projects", https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/issues/442. Its reproduced below, and it follows the principal of least change.

We could have done fancier stuff for the change, but I resisted the urge. I avoided CRYPTOPP_ADD_BYTE_TO_GLOBAL and friends because its just as easy for a user program to add the typedef themselves.

We passed on the change in Pull Request 438, https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/pull/438 . It was a good, intermediate solution to the problem. However, it would have (1) required a second change later; and (2) it treated the symptom and not the root cause of the problem.

We advised folks how to fix their projects at https://www.cryptopp.com/wiki/Std::byte#Fixing_Programs.

I also performed several dry runs on other people's projects. Most have either (1) no problems; or (2) very minimal problems. Here was the worst of them during my testing: https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/pycryptopp/pull/43 .

Are there any objections to the merge?

Jeff

**********

$ cat byte.diff
diff --git a/config.h b/config.h
index 291b148..92a6b84 100644
--- a/config.h
+++ b/config.h
@@ -194,10 +194,12 @@ namespace CryptoPP { }
 #      define __USE_W32_SOCKETS
 #endif

-typedef unsigned char byte;
+// typedef unsigned char byte;
+#define CRYPTOPP_NO_GLOBAL_BYTE 1

 NAMESPACE_BEGIN(CryptoPP)

+typedef unsigned char byte;
 typedef unsigned short word16;
 typedef unsigned int word32;

Jeffrey Walton

unread,
Jul 20, 2017, 10:43:06 AM7/20/17
to Crypto++ Users


On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 6:35:17 AM UTC-4, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Hi Everyone,

I'd like to merge the byte change discussed at "Issue 442, Test C++17 byte change with dry runs from various projects", https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/issues/442. Its reproduced below, and it follows the principal of least change.
...


Are there any objections to the merge?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages