Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > So with that in mind, is there a good reason to try and have this
> > functionality (but working this time!) in the new ASN1 code or should
> > any existing structure be freed and a new one freshly allocate?
>
> Are refcounts on the ASN1 objects or higher-level? How do you handle
> overwrite if the refcount != 1?
>
As I indicated it completely stuffs up that case currently. It will
overwrite anything in there and ignore the reference count.
> I would rather see that first parameter eliminated altogether, or
> assert(type == NULL)
> :)
A bit tricky that. Its all over the place.
What I can do however is add a couple of lines that simply free it up
and reallocate it. That's very painful in the current ASN1 code but dead
easy in the new stuff. That effectively does the right thing in all
cases but means there's no longer any real reason to use the parameter.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk/
Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior crypto engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/
Core developer of the OpenSSL project: http://www.openssl.org/
Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: via homepage.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
