3 ms·
While I haven't look at the OS/2 support of OpensSSL specifically, surely it is not a question about code that it never executed, but code that is never built o
by xorcist 12y ago
While I haven't look at the OS/2 support of OpensSSL specifically, surely it is not a question about code that it never executed, but code that is never built on a modern system. That makes it more a question about code maintainability and code readability, rather than security problems with seldom executed code.
- nailer 12y agoThat's likely true in the case of OS/2, DGUX workarounds might be ran on Unix boxes. It's all dead code that any of us here would remove from our own software projects - and your point about the OpenSSL team's lack of resources is quite relevant to that.
- tedunangst 12y agoMuch of the code you don't think was ever built on a modern system was being built. Either because they enabled the workaround everywhere on purpose, or because the preprocessor test was borked and the modern code never enabled.