In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 6 Apr 2003 12:36:11 +0200, Nils Larsch <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
nlarsch> Richard Levitte wrote:
nlarsch> ...
nlarsch> > +int EVP_PKEY_cmp(EVP_PKEY *a, EVP_PKEY *b)
nlarsch>
nlarsch> Wouldn't be EVP_PKEY_cmp(const EVP_PKEY *a, const EVP_PKEY *b)
nlarsch> more appropriate ?
Very good point, thank you. I've now committed a change to implement
that. As you can see, I constified a few more, while I was at it.
nlarsch> Shouldn't we compare the parameters as well (I don't know if
nlarsch> it's really necessary for the intended usage) ?
There's a separate function that does that, EVP_PKEY_cmp_parameters().
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ 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]
