On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:19:37AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:39:26AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Marko Kreen <marko@l-t.ee> writes: > > > They won't matter on older OpenSSL, as the macros will recast > > > again. But on 0.9.7e the signature is: > > > > > void DES_ecb3_encrypt(const unsigned char *input, unsigned char *output, > > > DES_key_schedule *ks1,DES_key_schedule *ks2, > > > DES_key_schedule *ks3, int enc); > > > > > so it seems to me that with your patch the warnings will appear > > > on newer OpenSSL. (Confirmed) > > > > Grumble --- you're right. It's probably not worth ifdef'ing the code to > > suppress the warnings on 0.9.7a ... > > Hmmm...in 0.9.8 the signature is back to what it was in 0.9.7[a-d]: > > void DES_ecb3_encrypt(const_DES_cblock *input, DES_cblock *output, > DES_key_schedule *ks1,DES_key_schedule *ks2, > DES_key_schedule *ks3, int enc);
Ugh. As I see the old signature goes up to 0.9.7d, and only 0.9.7[e,f,g] have the new signature. 0.9.7e is released on Oct 2004. There is a chance that the 0.9.8 serie was branched before that and later 0.9.8x releases will also change signature. Or the change was mistake, and it was reversed in 0.9.8 - but then why release 0.9.7[f,g] with new signature? When I saw that only 0.9.7[efg] have new signature I even considered macrofying that. But now with 0.9.8 again different I really would like to not to touch it, as I have no idea which one will be the stable signature. Comments? -- marko ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
