> There may be no portable way to handle TSD cleanup, but there is
> no portable
> way to do threading at all anyway, so I'm not sure what your argument is
> there.
Huh? POSIX threads are portable. There are even support libraries for
WIN32.
> I'm not arguing that any of this needs to be done in a
> portable way,
> and of course it cannot be since dynamically loadable modules (and
> threading) are outside the scope of the C standard.
Well, that's the problem. When you're trying to maintain a portable
library, doing things that can't be done portably gets a low priority. It is
often a better choice just not to do them.
> My original response
> was to correct your reply to Steffen in which you stated that
> these 36 bytes
> are not leaked. The fact is that they are. Perhaps it's not a serious
> leak, but a leak nonetheless.
They are leaked only if a program repeatedly opens and closes the
OpenSSL
library. If this is not supported, then they are only leaked if the
library's interface contract is broken.
I don't know if OpenSSL is supposed to specifically support the unusual
use
of being dynamically linked, and repeatedly opened and closed. A leak that
only occurs under unsupported usage is not a leak if only supported usage is
attempted.
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
