From: Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jorton> Does the CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS increment (and renumbering of
jorton> CRYPTO_LOCK_*) break binary compatibility? I see mod_ssl is
jorton> allocating a static array sized by CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS... not
jorton> sure if this is common practice.
It would. That's why the function CRYPTO_num_locks() exists.
It's unfortunate that CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS is exported...
Have we changed CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS between patch levels? I can't recall
that we have. If we have, that's unfortunate.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-733-72 88 11
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, GemPlus: http://www.gemplus.com/
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]
