>Another option is to abandon no-err instead of trying to make it work ...
>some code systematically relies on the error queue being available
>(look for ERR_peek_error() and ERR_peek_last_error()).
>Do you think that there is a strong reason for keeping (and repairing)
>no-err?
Yes, indeed, I have a reason to make the no_err option work - it is
code size. The option excludes many text strings from the compilation
(if it works).
I have looked into the many references which are broken when the
crypto/err directory is not included in the build and have found
it much easier to fix the build process so that the no_err option
does what it is supposed to do - keep the directory and the entry
points which other parts of the program reference, but suppress
superfluous code and text strings. So this is now _my_ answer to
the question I have asked here.
Regards, Martin (and a special greeting to my alma mater TH Darmstadt, now
TU)
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
