Comment by milliams | Hacker News Reader

Comment by milliams | Hacker News Reader

The first question it asked me was:

  int SSL_shutdown(SSL *s)
  {
    if (s->handshake_func == 0)
    {
      SSLerr(SSL_F_SSL_SHUTDOWN, SSL_R_UNINITIALIZED);
      return -1;
    }

    if ((s != NULL) && !SSL_in_init(s))
      return(s->method->ssl_shutdown(s));
    else
      return(1);
    }
    ....
  }

so of course the first thing I noticed was the mismatched braces after the 'else'. The 'intended' error was elsewhere (and I agree with it) but to say that the brace isn't an error is a bit much given the sorts of problems that PVS is normally finding.

It's hard to say about that, since there is ... which can contain anything (like for example another opening { ).

It's a good practice to always use braces with if / else even if it's just one line in them.

I don't think you are right. Regardless if what is after that contained in the `...` wouldn't matter. A lone `{` or `}` would be a syntax error.

As I said, it wouldn't be a syntax error if ... contained the matching { somewhere inside.

That lone } which seemingly belongs to if in this case would be closing the function.

They are talking about the } after the return, not the one after the ... i.e. else return(1); }

Yes, that's what I understood. That } after return matches to the function opening {. So it's correct syntactically, but is wrong according to intention.

Yes there's a typo / mispaste in the code there, but of course that wouldn't compile and they're not asking what wouldn't compile ('....' wouldn't compile either).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com