I've been thinking about the whole static vs. dynamic lock situation, and I must say I have some difficulty seeing a good way out of it. The two variants serve similar purposes, but have one crucial difference, and it's that the static ones are pre-initialised.
If everything was converted to use dynamic locks, I wonder where those locks would be created and initialised? Shall we have yet another startup function, say OpenSSL_init(), that does this (BTW, we really should have that anyway, so we have something that does all those startup things that people usually need to do, but that's another story)? I was playing with the thought of having CRYPTO_lock() create new locks on the fly if needed, but that won't work because a) there is no way to know of the given lock index would be an error or a request for a new lock, and b) to protect the creation against concurency, we'd need another lock => catch 22! This needs a lot more thought. In any case, Bertie, I will apply your patch. I do it reluctantly, but I've realised that the situation demands it. -- 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]