undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxorcist11y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

tedunangst11y ago

Much 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.

nailer11y ago

That'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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse