>No entirely true. It's very possible to use, if you make sure you
>have a standard replacement alloca() for those architecture that don't
>have it.
Oh yuck, recurse once and compare addresses to see which way the
stack grows.
>There are other solutions, then, like keeping memory pools to make
>sure we don't get that kind of fragmentation. That will require some
>extra work, however...
Absolutely. For my servers, I know better than openssl how to manage
memory. For example, I want my memory pools per-thread so that I
don't have to make "malloc" be a critical-region. To restate, I
would hate to see "let's make openssl better support binary shared
library version mismatch" come at the expense of "trust me, I know
you always want malloc()." Especially if "recompile" solves the first
part.
/r$
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
