pkcs11 — archive

[Andrey Jivsov]

On 05/21/2013 12:18 PM, Tim Hudson wrote: Suggesting changing a variably defined type (CK_ULONG as a long) to another variably defined type (size_t) is a pretty pointless exercise IMHO that solves nothing in terms of portability of the interface between 32-bit and 64-bit platforms or for a simple network protocol encoding. The intention is to align the definition of CK_ULONG on various platforms with the least impact. I agree that this is a breaking change. I was discussing it in the context "let's make CK_ULONG uint32_t", which I think is unnecessary. However as this isn't a v2.40 topic I suggest we save the real debate (and associated polls) for after we lock down the v2.40 work. Changing CK_ULONG isn't within the scope of v2.40 as I understand the consensus from the face to face discussions. If there are disagreements on what should or should not be in scope for v2.40 then we should have a straw poll to settle that issue. We could define the range of possible value that CK_ULONG can take, which would put this issue to rest.