Re: [pkcs11] CK_ULONG considered harmful?

[Andrey Jivsov <Andrey_Jivsov@symantec.com>]

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.