On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Bodo Moeller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 01:20:52AM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> >> So, is backwards compatibility an important issue here
> >> and is it worth this kind of evil hack, or should we
> >> just add the parameters?
>
> > Backward compatibility is an important issue. Think "dynamic
> > library".
>
> The funny thing here is that if we just add the parameters, then on
> systems with "standard" calling convention old programs should run
> without any problems with newly compiled shared libraries: The new
> library functions will expect one parameter that is not actually there
> and will take whatever happens to be on the stack and pass it to the
> callback function as a "pointer argument"; the callback function in
> turn just ignores this extra (garbage) argument.
Except for the extra field in ssl_ctx - that would have to be moved to
the end or it will break alignment.
Regards,
Damien Miller
--
| "Bombay is 250ms from New York in the new world order" - Alan Cox
| Damien Miller - http://www.ilogic.com.au/~dmiller
| Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
