My normal habit these days, in new code, is to treat int and bool as
_almost_ completely separate types. I'm still willing to use C's
implicit test for zero on an integer (e.g. 'if (!blob.len)' is fine,
no need to spell it out as blob.len != 0), but generally, if a
variable is going to be conceptually a boolean, I like to declare it
bool and assign to it using 'true' or 'false' rather than 0 or 1.
PuTTY is an exception, because it predates the C99 bool, and I've
stuck to its existing coding style even when adding new code to it.
But it's been annoying me more and more, so now that I've decided C99
bool is an acceptable thing to require from our toolchain in the first
place, here's a quite thorough trawl through the source doing
'boolification'. Many variables and function parameters are now typed
as bool rather than int; many assignments of 0 or 1 to those variables
are now spelled 'true' or 'false'.
I managed this thorough conversion with the help of a custom clang
plugin that I wrote to trawl the AST and apply heuristics to point out
where things might want changing. So I've even managed to do a decent
job on parts of the code I haven't looked at in years!
To make the plugin's work easier, I pushed platform front ends
generally in the direction of using standard 'bool' in preference to
platform-specific boolean types like Windows BOOL or GTK's gboolean;
I've left the platform booleans in places they _have_ to be for the
platform APIs to work right, but variables only used by my own code
have been converted wherever I found them.
In a few places there are int values that look very like booleans in
_most_ of the places they're used, but have a rarely-used third value,
or a distinction between different nonzero values that most users
don't care about. In these cases, I've _removed_ uses of 'true' and
'false' for the return values, to emphasise that there's something
more subtle going on than a simple boolean answer:
- the 'multisel' field in dialog.h's list box structure, for which
the GTK front end in particular recognises a difference between 1
and 2 but nearly everything else treats as boolean
- the 'urgent' parameter to plug_receive, where 1 vs 2 tells you
something about the specific location of the urgent pointer, but
most clients only care about 0 vs 'something nonzero'
- the return value of wc_match, where -1 indicates a syntax error in
the wildcard.
- the return values from SSH-1 RSA-key loading functions, which use
-1 for 'wrong passphrase' and 0 for all other failures (so any
caller which already knows it's not loading an _encrypted private_
key can treat them as boolean)
- term->esc_query, and the 'query' parameter in toggle_mode in
terminal.c, which _usually_ hold 0 for ESC[123h or 1 for ESC[?123h,
but can also hold -1 for some other intervening character that we
don't support.
In a few places there's an integer that I haven't turned into a bool
even though it really _can_ only take values 0 or 1 (and, as above,
tried to make the call sites consistent in not calling those values
true and false), on the grounds that I thought it would make it more
confusing to imply that the 0 value was in some sense 'negative' or
bad and the 1 positive or good:
- the return value of plug_accepting uses the POSIXish convention of
0=success and nonzero=error; I think if I made it bool then I'd
also want to reverse its sense, and that's a job for a separate
piece of work.
- the 'screen' parameter to lineptr() in terminal.c, where 0 and 1
represent the default and alternate screens. There's no obvious
reason why one of those should be considered 'true' or 'positive'
or 'success' - they're just indices - so I've left it as int.
ssh_scp_recv had particularly confusing semantics for its previous int
return value: its call sites used '<= 0' to check for error, but it
never actually returned a negative number, just 0 or 1. Now the
function and its call sites agree that it's a bool.
In a couple of places I've renamed variables called 'ret', because I
don't like that name any more - it's unclear whether it means the
return value (in preparation) for the _containing_ function or the
return value received from a subroutine call, and occasionally I've
accidentally used the same variable for both and introduced a bug. So
where one of those got in my way, I've renamed it to 'toret' or 'retd'
(the latter short for 'returned') in line with my usual modern
practice, but I haven't done a thorough job of finding all of them.
Finally, one amusing side effect of doing this is that I've had to
separate quite a few chained assignments. It used to be perfectly fine
to write 'a = b = c = TRUE' when a,b,c were int and TRUE was just a
the 'true' defined by stdbool.h, that idiom provokes a warning from
gcc: 'suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value'!
This commit includes <stdbool.h> from defs.h and deletes my
traditional definitions of TRUE and FALSE, but other than that, it's a
100% mechanical search-and-replace transforming all uses of TRUE and
FALSE into the C99-standardised lowercase spellings.
No actual types are changed in this commit; that will come next. This
is just getting the noise out of the way, so that subsequent commits
can have a higher proportion of signal.
The annoying int64.h is completely retired, since C99 guarantees a
64-bit integer type that you can actually treat like an ordinary
integer. Also, I've replaced the local typedefs uint32 and word32
(scattered through different parts of the crypto code) with the
standard uint32_t.
Like the SFTP server, this is implemented in-process rather than by
invoking a separate scp server binary.
It also uses the internal SftpServer abstraction for access to the
server's filesystem, which means that when (or if) I implement an
alternative SftpServer implementing a dummy file system for test suite
purposes, this scp server should automatically start using it too.
As a bonus, the new scpserver.c contains a large comment documenting
my understanding of the SCP protocol, which I previously didn't have
even a de-facto or post-hoc spec for. I don't claim it's authoritative
- it's all reverse-engineered from my own code and observing other
implementations in action - but at least it'll make it easier to
refresh my own memory of what's going on the next time I need to do
something to either this code or PSCP.
