Renaming index to psk_index to prevent name collision #2595
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rday
approved these changes
Feb 17, 2021
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2595 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.96% 82.04% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 274 274
Lines 19365 19345 -20
==========================================
- Hits 15873 15872 -1
+ Misses 3492 3473 -19 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolved Issues
Related to #2591
Description of changes:
Renaming variable name index to psk_index to prevent naming collision in RHEL5_64 systems.
Describe s2n’s current behavior and how your code changes that behavior. If there are no issues this pr is resolving, explain why this change is necessary.
Call-outs:
Address any potentially confusing code. Is there code added that needs to be cleaned up later? Is there code that is missing because it’s still in development?
Testing:
How is this change tested (unit tests, fuzz tests, etc.)? Are there any testing steps to be verified by the reviewer?
Is this a refactor change? If so, how have you proved that the intended behavior hasn't changed?
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.