> Hmm. That's basically an anonymous choice 4 and 5 (depending on ctl
> code).
Yes, that was my vote/proposal. Anonymous/whitened pointer argument is
the key to binary compatibility (at _ctrl level) and having anything
(anything at all) passed by value is not the right thing to do.
> My thought about that one was that BIO_ctrl would be declared
> and defined to take a 'sin_of_ansification *'
^ you vote for #4, no star here.
> as argument instead of a
> 'void *' (a non-anonymous variant 4).
But it breaks *source* code compatibility and old users gonna get (really)
frustrated.
> This would still be binary
> compatible (as you noted), but would force new users to use a more
> type-safe approach to the control functions. Also, in that case, new
> ctl codes would not be required.
Is a new code a problem?
Andy.
P.S. In reply to previous message.
> Why have it different for o_names.c?
It's uses private interface routines and #4 might be the appropriate
option. Well, "private" means "not likely used by an average OpenSSL
developer."
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
