Win98 mingw problem with openssl head

2010-11-26 Thread Doug Kaufman
In compiling openssl head (tarball from 18 November 2010) for mingw under cygwin on a Windows98 machine, I came across a problem in crypto/bss_file.c. The code compiles fine on Windows98 and the openssl.exe executable works fine on WindowsXP, but fails to work on Windows98. The problem shows up dur

Re: [openssl.org #2381] MinGW builds are being "optimized for MS-DOS"

2010-11-26 Thread dkauf...@rahul.net via RT
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Zouzou via RT wrote: > i am reporting a bug with regards to a missing flag in MinGW targets. > the bug is present in both 0.9 and 1.0 branches; it is (in our case) > only leading to crashes in 1.0. > > the missing flag is: OPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32 > it is always defined for MS

Re: [openssl.org #2381] MinGW builds are being "optimized for MS-DOS"

2010-11-26 Thread Doug Kaufman
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Zouzou via RT wrote: > i am reporting a bug with regards to a missing flag in MinGW targets. > the bug is present in both 0.9 and 1.0 branches; it is (in our case) > only leading to crashes in 1.0. > > the missing flag is: OPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32 > it is always defined for MS

[openssl.org #2381] MinGW builds are being "optimized for MS-DOS"

2010-11-26 Thread Zouzou via RT
hello, i am reporting a bug with regards to a missing flag in MinGW targets. the bug is present in both 0.9 and 1.0 branches; it is (in our case) only leading to crashes in 1.0. the missing flag is: OPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32 it is always defined for MSVC targets, but MinGW ones are forgetting to a

Re: [openssl.org #2365] Limitations of ENGINE interface hamper performance on modern hardware

2010-11-26 Thread Thor Simon
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:08:11AM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: > BTW, you wrote this a month ago... > > > [...@coyotepoint.com - Sun Oct 24 14:39:15 2010]: > [...] > > I will file another bug describing these and > > detailing > > one possible solution. > > Did you? I can't seem to see