If some users find 1.1 to be a worse alternative to 1.0.2, but they have the power to use a very new version of 1.0.2, then this makes sense for reverse compatibility.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Peter Waltenberg <pwal...@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > The point of using accessor FUNCTIONS is that the code doesn't break if > the structure size or offsets of fields in the underlying structures change > across binaries. > > Where that mainly has an impact is updating the crypto/ssl libs underneath > existing binaries is more likely to just work. > > #defines in the headers do not help at all here. > > > Peter > > > -----"openssl-dev" <openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org> wrote: ----- > To: openssl-dev@openssl.org > From: Richard Moore > Sent by: "openssl-dev" > Date: 01/10/2016 11:20AM > Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] Backporting opaque struct getter/setter > functions > > > > > On 9 January 2016 at 22:45, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > >> >> > required to perform many operations. What do people think about >> > backporting those accessors into the 1.0.2 branch? >> >> Another possibility is to have a just a single (new) header file that has >> #define's for the accessors that turn into raw structure access. >> >> > That would not help anyone who needs function pointers. > > > Rich. > > > _______________________________________________ > openssl-dev mailing list > To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > openssl-dev mailing list > To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev > >
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
