> "Geoff" == Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Geoff> The whole point had been that snprintf (and vsnprintf) don't exist on all
Geoff> platforms, they're GNU extensions. BIO_printf currently has a fixed 2k
Actually, they're in the new POSIX spec, but a buch of OS's still don't have
th
At 18:16 01.12.99 +, you wrote:
>On 30 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > great. BIO_nprintf?
>
>The whole point had been that snprintf (and vsnprintf) don't exist on all
>platforms, they're GNU extensions. BIO_printf currently has a fixed 2k
>b
On 30 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > great. BIO_nprintf?
>
> BIO_nprintf() wouldn't be of much use in itself, would it?
>
> Better to just fix BIO_printf so it handles unlimited length output
> the way printf() does. Fixing it right will mean in
Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> great. BIO_nprintf?
BIO_nprintf() wouldn't be of much use in itself, would it?
Better to just fix BIO_printf so it handles unlimited length output
the way printf() does. Fixing it right will mean including source
for a printf() implementation, modified
Hi there,
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> > There's a couple of people on this list who are also involved rather
> > heavily with Apache ... how do the licenses stand up to "code-sharing" of
> > that sort ... and if the answer is "badly", is there an alternative we
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> There's a couple of people on this list who are also involved rather
> heavily with Apache ... how do the licenses stand up to "code-sharing" of
> that sort ... and if the answer is "badly", is there an alternative we
> could pull in rather than leaving this as-is or having t
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> As I'd mentioned a while back, there seems to be some form of behavioural
> change in the machinery underneath SSL_CTX_load_verify_locations that has
> it spitting tacks where previously it was happy. As far as I can spot,
> this affects ssltest, s_server, s
Hi there,
As I'd mentioned a while back, there seems to be some form of behavioural
change in the machinery underneath SSL_CTX_load_verify_locations that has
it spitting tacks where previously it was happy. As far as I can spot,
this affects ssltest, s_server, s_client, and four different parts o
