OK, what stops you from creating your own implementation table and
fill that with whatever you want, and give that as an argument to
ERR_set_implementation(). I know, it means you have to look in
crypto/err/err.c for each version to see if there's been a change to
ERR_FNS. Guess what? It sounds like you must fiddle with that file
eaither way...
--
Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 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.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:02:15 +0200 (METDST), "Frédéric
Giudicelli via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rt> Because, I could "stub" the default implementation, and if the error
rt> handling has been disabled, then I just don't call the default
rt> implementation function.
rt>
rt> Frédéric Giudicelli
rt> http://www.newpki.org
rt>
rt>
rt> ----- Original Message -----
rt> From: "Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rt> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rt> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rt> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 1:52 PM
rt> Subject: Re: [openssl.org #629] Custom error handling
rt>
rt>
rt> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 4 Jul 2003
rt> 00:12:24 +0200, Frédéric Giudicelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rt> >
rt> > groups> The problem is the following, yes your code
rt> (ERR_pop_to_mark/ERR_set_mark)
rt> > groups> is fine when a child function is adding a new error, however, what
rt> happends
rt> > groups> when it calls ERR_clear_error ? In my implementation I need the
rt> error stack
rt> > groups> to be preserved even if a child function calls ERR_clear_error.
rt> > groups>
rt> > groups> That's why if you happended to remove the "if (!err_fns)" test in
rt> > groups> ERR_set_implementation, I would be more than happy.
rt> >
rt> > I'm sorry, but in what way does that prevent the error stack to be
rt> > cleared? Maybe a better thing would be to have a flag that inhibits
rt> > clearing the error stack... I'll ponder over this issue.
rt> >
rt> > --
rt> > Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rt> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
rt> > \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
rt> > Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rt> > Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
rt> >
rt> > Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
rt> > See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
rt> > ______________________________________________________________________
rt> > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
rt> > Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rt> > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rt> >
rt>
rt> ______________________________________________________________________
rt> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
rt> Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rt> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
