If you're doing your own makefiles (cmake for instance), then anything is allowed: if 2 dlls feels like trouble to you, I'd suggest building the entire thing as a library (a.k.a. static library) instead -- can't imagine what 1 dll does better than 2 of the buggers, but that 's just me -- but anyway: bottom line: there's no reason why dumping it all in 1 dll would be a problem per se.
Of course you'll need to adjust the export lists (and scripts if you go fancy) so both crypto and ssl routines are exported just as with the regular 2-dll system, so you may need to work on that bit a bit more than just writing a cmake file, but that should be about it. Another way would be to forego the export (def) files entirely and use another approach, such as automated export using tools like createDLL as it is used by the OpenEXR project (we use that one in house a lot, including our custom OpenSSL MSVC projects; no messing around with dllexport/dllimport or DEF files then, unless you need that access-by-ordinal functionality as well, in which case createDLL can import existing DEF files to supply that bit of info). All in all: 1 dll: no problem; just work to be done. Nothing fancy. Then again, you might ask yourself why you want/need a 1dll vs. the regular 2dll layout (which represents the two components: crypto and comm. protocol, just fine); 1lib vs. 2dlls I can see, but not 1dll vs. 2 dlls, but that's something you'll have to answer for yourself. BTW: in-house, we use a 3dll approach, where all the test apps are put in the third dll as test functions, using a MONOLITH-derived main() renaming tactic (MEGAMONOLITH). This then results in a single openssl exe and 3 dlls which contain everything that is OpenSSL: the crypto, the protocol and all the sample and tests apps accessible through an augmented version of the regular 'openssl' app, which is now the one and only main(). Also handy when you want to carry the source tree over to an embedded system which does not sport a 'shell' of some sort. BTW BTW: if you stripped the phone number, then the entire legal mumbojumbo just got moot, so why not ditch the entire thing while you're at it? It's legalese cop-out/filler and 'adjusting' it just turned it into 100% cruft/filler. What are you afraid of that you did kill the phone number but kept the text that depends on it? Ah well. No bother. On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Deckers, Rob <rob.deck...@oce.com> wrote: > When I do: nmake -f ms\ntdll.mak install > > I get 4 Directories: > - bin > - lib > - include > - ssl > > In the bin directory, I see "ssleay32.dll" and "libeay32.dll". > > Now, I am building OpenSSL myself with CMake and it would be easier to just > build one big dll. > > Therefor, I am wondering if I run into problems it I build it as one DLL. > > @ David Kirkby: I removed my phone number just in this case, and not by > accident ;) > > > > Rob Deckers > > > -- Met vriendelijke groeten / Best regards, Ger Hobbelt -------------------------------------------------- web: http://www.hobbelt.com/ http://www.hebbut.net/ mail: g...@hobbelt.com mobile: +31-6-11 120 978 --------------------------------------------------
