Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker]

From: Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

jaltman> It appears that someone decided to replace function
jaltman> declarations from 0.9.5 with macros in 0.9.6.

Ah, the pletora of stack functions.

jaltman> This should never be done, in fact no public APIs should ever
jaltman> be implemented as macros.

"never" is pretty strong.  What happened was that a huge amount of
stack handling functions were created automagically, making the
library pretty huge after a while, and needlessly so.  We decided
therefore to redo the implementation with macros, which also saves us
from possible duplicate implementations.

jaltman> The problem has to do with linkage.  Attempts to substitute
jaltman> the 0.9.6 DLLs for 0.9.5a DLLs will fail due to missing
jaltman> functions:

Is there a way, with DLL's, to say that if a program is linked with a
previous version, it must be relinked?  For example, under OpenVMS I
can assign a shared library a major and a minor number, and also say
what condition make a new shared library valid for use with programs
that were linked with a previous version (usually, a shared library
can be used with programs that were linked with a version with the
same major and a lesser or equal minor).

I'm of the opinion that if that functionality is missing, it's a flaw
in the operating system.

jaltman> For compatibility 
jaltman> 
jaltman>   #define sk_GENERAL_NAME_num(st) SKM_sk_num(GENERAL_NAME, (st))
jaltman> 
jaltman> should have been implemented as a stub function instead of a macro.

And what would that stub do?  Tell you that you need to
recompile/relink and do an abort()?

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chairman@Stacken   \ S-168 35  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
Redakteur@Stacken   \      SWEDEN       \ or +46-709-50 36 10
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis                -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]