Both BIO_write() and BIO_puts() increment num_write on success. But BIO_gets()
by all appearances does not increment num_read, only BIO_read() does. I don't
see why that omission in BIO_gets() would be intentional. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jay
Patch has already been reverted. Presumably the 0.9.8 one (Checkin
#19561) is OK?
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Proje
The recent checkin #19560 causes a bug by changing the third parameter from
rr->seq_num to &rr->seq_num in dtls_buffer_record() calls in d1_pkt.c. However,
this is not correct because rr->seq_num is an array, see ssl3.h:
unsigned char seq_num[8];
So it was referenced correctly, the change was n
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010, Richard Levitte wrote:
> Steven, I've made a number of changes in the 1.0.0 branch, all
> according to what I received from you a couple of weeks ago.
>
> It builds and seems to test fine for me, but I haven't checked
> everything and I'm sure there are things I have missed.
Steven, I've made a number of changes in the 1.0.0 branch, all
according to what I received from you a couple of weeks ago.
It builds and seems to test fine for me, but I haven't checked
everything and I'm sure there are things I have missed.
I'd be happy if you'd be willing to have a look at tomo
>> Mario must be referring to 0.9.8.
> No I use the source from 1.0.0
>
>> 1.0.0 has assembler support for VC-WIN64A.
>
> I wonder! Since in INSTALL.W64 there is written that there isn't ASM
> code for x64.
It only says that assembler is not available in "initial 0.9.8 release."
It doesn't mean
Mario Brandt writes:
[...]
> I wonder! Since in INSTALL.W64 there is written that there isn't ASM
> code for x64.
I think that file just hasn't been updated.
[...]
>> Perhaps a difference in VS version or something
> I use VC 2008 and nasm is in my %PATH%
Well, that's why it works for you: y
> Mario must be referring to 0.9.8.
No I use the source from 1.0.0
>1.0.0 has assembler support for VC-WIN64A.
I wonder! Since in INSTALL.W64 there is written that there isn't ASM
code for x64.
And in the do_win64i.bat there is the config not to use ASM (no-asm)
So does it use the ASM source?
pe
Andy Polyakov writes:
[...]
> The line looks like one generated for ml64. Even though ml64 is not
> unsupported, it's not periodically tested. Meaning that eventual
> problems are fixed upon user feedback. Like this one. Thanks for report.
OK, I understand.
[...]
> Verify following:
>
> --- c
> Mario Brandt <...> writes:
>
>> For 64 bit there is no ASM source available.
Mario must be referring to 0.9.8.
> Really? But what about crypto/aes/asm/aes-x86_64.pl? That looks like
> it'll create ASM for WIN64, and appears to (in tmp32dll I have an
> aes-x86_64.asm).
1.0.0 has assembler su
Mario Brandt writes:
> For 64 bit there is no ASM source available.
Really? But what about crypto/aes/asm/aes-x86_64.pl? That looks like
it'll create ASM for WIN64, and appears to (in tmp32dll I have an
aes-x86_64.asm).
> For me it builds fine.
Hmm, that's odd. Perhaps a difference in VS ve
For 64 bit there is no ASM source available. For me it builds fine.
perl Configure VC-WIN64A --prefix=/Apache22
--openssldir=/Apache22/conf enable-camellia disable-idea
ms\do_win64a
nmake -f ms\ntdll.mak
REM remove md2 and idea test from ms\test.bat
nmake -f ms\ntdll.mak test
regards
Mario
On T
Bruce Stephens writes:
[...]
> (Previously we also ran ms\do_masm.bat but that seems to have gone.)
My mistake, we call that for Windows 32 builds, not 64-bit builds.
When do_win64a.bat is being run it gives errors about nasm not being
found.
[...]
___
Does this now require nasm?
I tried
perl Configure VC-WIN64A
ms\do_win64a.bat
nmake -f ms\ntdll.mak
but that gives an error when compiling tmp32dll\x86_64cpuid.asm:
tmp32dll\x86_64cpuid.asm(144) : error A2008: syntax error : DB
(Previously we also ran ms\do_masm.bat but
14 matches
Mail list logo
