In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:32:52 +0200, Andy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
appro> > appro> 1. I'm reluctant to include bn.h to non-bn code, because it's appro> > appro> nothing but counterintuitive [and is not good in long run]. appro> > appro> 2. My standpoint is [still] that pqueue/dtls1 should not have appro> > appro> dependancy on bh.h either. appro> > appro> 3. Using BIGNUM for DTLS purposes is *total* overkill. To back appro> > appro> this up I'm going to suggest alternative, 64-bit neutral pq appro> > appro> code shortly:-) appro> > appro> > I agree. appro> appro> Consider http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=13985 for 0.9.8. That was... unexpected :-). I was expecting some better kind of 64-bit emulating type, but definitely not an array of unsigned char. Cheers, Richard ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
