On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 19:12, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> What compiler warns about this? It's perfectly fine to pass a nonconst
>> string to a function that takes a const string.
>
> char * vs unsigned char *?
Oh, I guess. My feeli
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > What compiler warns about this? It's perfectly fine to pass a nonconst
> > string to a function that takes a const string.
>
> char * vs unsigned char *?
So this is a great way to lose focus.
The agenda is a step-by-step refacto
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> What compiler warns about this? It's perfectly fine to pass a nonconst
> string to a function that takes a const string.
char * vs unsigned char *?
Joerg
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 17:32, Brent Cook wrote:
> ASN1_STRING_data returns an unsigned char *, but strlcat's second
> parameter is a const char *
> ---
> src/crypto/ts/ts_rsp_verify.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/crypto/ts/ts_rsp_verify.c b/src/cry
ASN1_STRING_data returns an unsigned char *, but strlcat's second
parameter is a const char *
---
src/crypto/ts/ts_rsp_verify.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/crypto/ts/ts_rsp_verify.c b/src/crypto/ts/ts_rsp_verify.c
index 2a4c0c5..49754b5 100644
--- a/src/
