| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
as "STRING" cause conflicts with other headers/libraries.
|
|
Conversion between void * and function pointer.
Value computed not used.
Signed/unsigned argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PR: 1170
Submitted by: Yair Elharrar
Reviewed and edited by: Nils Larsch
|
|
|
|
|
|
PR: 49
|
|
missed any.
This compiles and runs on Linux, and external applications have no
problems with it. The definite test will be to build this on VMS.
|
|
sure they are available in opensslconf.h, by giving them names starting
with "OPENSSL_" to avoid conflicts with other packages and by making
sure e_os2.h will cover all platform-specific cases together with
opensslconf.h.
I've checked fairly well that nothing breaks with this (apart from
external software that will adapt if they have used something like
NO_KRB5), but I can't guarantee it completely, so a review of this
change would be a good thing.
|
|
casts) used in the lhash code are about as horrible and evil as they can
be. For starters, the callback prototypes contain empty parameter lists.
Yuck.
This first change defines clearer prototypes - including "typedef"'d
function pointer types to use as "hash" and "compare" callbacks, as well as
the callbacks passed to the lh_doall and lh_doall_arg iteration functions.
Now at least more explicit (and clear) casting is required in all of the
dependant code - and that should be included in this commit.
The next step will be to hunt down and obliterate some of the function
pointer casting being used when it's not necessary - a particularly evil
variant exists in the implementation of lh_doall.
|
|
like Malloc, Realloc and especially Free conflict with already existing names
on some operating systems or other packages. That is reason enough to change
the names of the OpenSSL memory allocation macros to something that has a
better chance of being unique, like prepending them with OPENSSL_.
This change includes all the name changes needed throughout all C files.
|
|
|
|
eliminate some of the -Wcast-qual warnings (debug-ben-strict target)
|
|
Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b
2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
.2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
