https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2948
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Harris <[email protected]> --- The diff looks nicely self-countained. Coding style - I'd mildly prefer typedefs to #defines, and with a foo_t name - Indent #foo within #ifdef as "# foo" - One-statement blocks (eg. if-clauses) don't need { } - (!foo) preferred to (foo == NULL) WRT the testsuite: have a look at 2620, which I worked on though haven't been really happy with. It doesn't seem reliable. It you could do something similar for LDAP, to initialise a suitable DB to work with (using non-Exim tooling driven by the testcase script, and then make queries from Exim as the testing - that would be a very useful advance in our test coverage. I've also never run those 9000/1 testcases. Possibly one could infer the data given the queries done? If we do merge this, would you be amenable to running a buildfarm animal, or at least actively monitoring the buildfarm for issues in this area? https://buildfarm.exim.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl shows the recent runs. On old-platform support: I know there's at least one user still running Solaris 10; they're dedicated enough to maintain a buildfarm animal for it. I don't know if your new code would work there, or how far back on Linuxen or BSDs - any ideas? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
