On Út, 2016-04-26 at 13:46 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
>
> I've seen no other opinion, so I went with it. Would you mind having
> a look at GH#995? I did a bit of change in the docs, but could need
> some help expressing it in a better manner.
>
> Also, I'd like to hear from Douglas and Tomas if these changes found
> in said pull request would fit your bill better... basically, it
> allows (or should allow, unless I've goofed something up) a call set
> like this:
>
> RSA_set0_key(rsa, n, e, NULL);
> /* other stuff done, such as calculatig d */
> RSA_set0_key(rsa, NULL, NULL, d);
Yes, this is a reasonable solution and the commit in GH#995 looks sane.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
