Re: [PATCH] Windows CE support for 0.9.7 (against 20021114snapshot)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:24:18 +1100, Steven Reddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: smr Since I'm using the MSVC++ /W3 /WX options (max warnings, treat warnings as smr errors), the following two numbered lines in x509_vfy.c are giving errors: smr time_t offset; smr807: offset= -offset; smr813: X509_time_adj(atm,-offset*60, cmp_time); Hmm, and now I realise I've been staring too much at 'time_t' without looking at the rest of the code there. offset isn't a measurement of time since Epoch, so it's an error to pretend it's a time_t. You're absolutely correct in saying it should be a long. Sorry for all the misdirected fuss... BTW, did you not ask me about some function that calculates the difference between to time_ts? That function is difftime(), and it returns a double. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ 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]
Re: [PATCH] Windows CE support for 0.9.7 (against 20021114snapshot)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 18 Nov 2002
00:51:36 +1100, Steven Reddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
smr This will copy each of the test programs to the Windows CE device and
smr execute
smr them, displaying the output of the tests on this computer. The output
smr should
smr look similar to the output produced by running the tests for a regular
smr Windows
smr build.
Added and committed.
smr I've tried the latest snapshot and found that a time_t variable needs to be
smr changed to a long. Windows CE's time_t is unsigned, whereas I think just
smr about every other platform must have it signed. I'm pretty sure that
smr there's an ANSI or standard Unix function that takes or returns a time_t
smr that is an offset from another time_t, so it probably needs to be signed to
smr allow values before the other time. Also, the infamous 2038 bug is due to a
smr signed time_t (unsigned would make it at least give us until 2106). It's
smr the offset = -offset which causes the problem here.
time_t can be anything. It can be a nose-picking monster for all I
know. All that matters is that it should represent time in some way,
and be usefull in that way for any function that takes a time_t as an
argument. Under VMS (with DEC C), time_t is defined like this:
typedef __time_t time_t;
and __time_t is defined like this:
typedef unsigned long int __time_t;
To represent time as a 64-bit blob, one could very well have this:
typedef struct { unsigned long t1, t2; } time_t;
That's why I'm asking you to tell me what problems you have with
time_t. It may be that some of the OpenSSL code does incorrect
assumptions about time_t (for example assumes that it's a long), and
therefore behaves incorrectly and should be corrected.
I will simply *not* change time_t to long in OpenSSL. That's going
backwards.
smr Attached is a patch to 20021116 which changes this time_t to long and also
smr makes the output directories tmp32_$(TARGETCPU) and out32_$(TARGETCPU), eg.
smr tmp32_ARM and out32_ARM. Chris, this means that you can do the following
Thanks for the TARGETCPU patch, I just committed it.
smr I left the comment in INSTALL.WCE (from INSTALL.W32) about Cygwin's perl
smr since it's a viable option. Even though I'm building in a regular Windows
smr command shell I'm using Cygwin's perl. Maybe it's not worth mentioning
smr though; I'm sure anyone with Cygwin can work out that they don't really need
smr ActiveState's perl.
It doesn't make much sense to run VC from Cygwin either, or does it?
Anyway, I'm sorry for the harsch notes. I think you've done a great
job doing this Windows CE port.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
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]
Re: [PATCH] Windows CE support for 0.9.7 (against 20021114snapshot)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:50:33 +1100, Steven Reddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: smr I thought that OPENSSL_SYSNAME_* was the new way of doing things, so I smr changed the Microsoft standard UNDER_CE to OPENSSL_SYSNAME_WINCE at the last smr minute. I think I had to pull in e_os.h in one of the files to make sure smr this was defined. I'll change it all back. No need to change it back. The OPENSSL_SYSNAME macros are used in e_os2.h to define appropriate OPENSSL_SYS macros. The latter are then used throughout the code. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ 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]
Re: [PATCH] Windows CE support for 0.9.7 (against 20021114snapshot)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:15:10 +1100, Steven Reddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: smr Could you please replace util/pl/VC-CE.pl with the one in the smr root directory, or just change the double quotes around $lflags smr at line#16 with single quotes. Done and committed. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ 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]
Re: [PATCH] Windows CE support for 0.9.7 (against 20021114snapshot)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:18:12 +1100, Steven Reddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: smr Everything is done from the Windows box. The test*ce*.bat files use cecopy smr to copy files to the device and cerun to invoke the test programs. The smr output of the tests is redirected back through cerun, kind of like using smr rsh. Thanks. I guess this should be rather clear if you're actually a CE user :-). smr I'll look into the time_t problem and get back to you later today. Thanks. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ 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]
Re: [PATCH] Windows CE support for 0.9.7 (against 20021114snapshot)
Thanks! Looks good for the most part, the only thing that's just non-traditional is the direct use of OPENSSL_SYSNAME_WINCE, but that's easily taken care of. Oh, yeah, is there any reason to keep VC-CE.pl (as opposed to util/pl/VC-CE.pl)? -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ 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]
Re: [PATCH] Windows CE support for 0.9.7 (against 20021114snapshot)
OK, there are a couple of things that are unclear to me: 1. INSTALL.WCE is a very good description, although it should have Perl among the list of requirements at the beginning. I can add that. One thing is unclear, however: does one do everything on the WinCE device? Or everything on a Windows box? My theory is that there's a middle ground, where you build everything on a Windows box, then transfer the result to the WinCE device, and run the tests there. Please give me a way to make this clear. 2. Where did you get that time_t couldn't be unsigned? I assume that if you go with the unsigned value, you get build warnings. If you could point those out, I'd be happier. I'm gonna commit in a few minutes, *without* the changes re time_t. If you coudl send further patches relative to that (i.e. snapshot 1115), it would be great. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ 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]
