Re: Cygwin compilation fails with 0.9.7-stable

2002-12-15 Thread Doug Kaufman
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:41:00 -0800 (PST), Doug Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: dkaufman ../libcrypto.a(dx86-out.o)(.text+0x68):des-586.s: undefined reference to `DES_SPtrans' dkaufman

Re: Cygwin compilation fails with 0.9.7-stable

2002-12-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:41:00 -0800 (PST), Doug Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: dkaufman gcc -o openssl -DMONOLITH -I.. -I../include -DOPENSSL_SYSNAME_CYGWIN32 -DOPENSSL_THREADS -DDSO_WIN32 -DOPENSSL_NO_KRB5

Make depend fails for gcc (0.9.6h)

2002-12-15 Thread Doug Kaufman
I just compiled openssl-0.9.6h (from CVS) with Cygwin. I configured with no-idea no-rc5 no-mdc2 no-shared. Make depend fails because Cygwin has no program named makedepend, which is called by util/domd. I borrowed the domd from 0.9.7, which has a provision for gcc being the makedepend program, and

Re: Cygwin compilation fails with 0.9.7-stable

2002-12-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
dkaufman ../libcrypto.a(dx86-out.o)(.text+0x68):des-586.s: undefined reference to `DES_SPtrans' dkaufman ../libcrypto.a(dx86-out.o)(.text+0xf3a):des-586.s: undefined reference to `DES_SPtrans' dkaufman ../libcrypto.a(yx86-out.o)(.text+0x9):crypt586.s: undefined reference to `DES_SPtrans'

Re: Cygwin compilation fails with 0.9.7-stable

2002-12-15 Thread Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 15 Dec 2002 01:20:33 -0800 (PST), Doug Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: dkaufman It has _DES_SPtrans, but not DES_SPtrans. Results of nm follow: Ah, C compilers do that, that's true... -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Make depend fails for gcc (0.9.6h)

2002-12-15 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 01:31:52AM -0800, Doug Kaufman wrote: I just compiled openssl-0.9.6h (from CVS) with Cygwin. I configured with no-idea no-rc5 no-mdc2 no-shared. Make depend fails because Cygwin has no program named makedepend, which is called by util/domd. I borrowed the domd from

Re: Make depend fails for gcc (0.9.6h)

2002-12-15 Thread Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:02:34 +0100, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: vinschen `makedepend' is typically part of the XFree86 package, in Cygwin as vinschen well as on Linux systems. Just install the Cygwin XFree86 package. I must admit it would be a little

Re: Make depend fails for gcc (0.9.6h)

2002-12-15 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:58:18PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:02:34 +0100, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: vinschen `makedepend' is typically part of the XFree86 package, in Cygwin as vinschen well as on Linux

Re: [CVS] OpenSSL: openssl Makefile.org

2002-12-15 Thread Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
Whoaa there, how does that change work when the compiler is *not* GNU? In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:27:54 +0100 (CET), Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: appro Log: appro Another Solaris shared build clean-up. This is not actually needed if one appro uses

Re: [CVS] OpenSSL: openssl Makefile.org

2002-12-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
Whoaa there, how does that change work when the compiler is *not* GNU? It works *perfectly* with vendor compiler! Trust me:-) A. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List

Re: [CVS] OpenSSL: openssl Makefile.org

2002-12-15 Thread Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 15 Dec 2002 20:43:46 +0100, Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: appro Whoaa there, how does that change work when the compiler is *not* GNU? appro appro It works *perfectly* with vendor compiler! Trust me:-) A. Really? They understand -Wl? I thought

Re: [CVS] OpenSSL: openssl Makefile.org

2002-12-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
appro Whoaa there, how does that change work when the compiler is *not* GNU? appro appro It works *perfectly* with vendor compiler! Trust me:-) A. Really? They understand -Wl? Yes. Well, I can tell for version 3, but even WorkShop C 4 understands -Wl. There is a whole bunch of compiler

Re: [CVS] OpenSSL: openssl Makefile.org

2002-12-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
appro Whoaa there, how does that change work when the compiler is *not* GNU? appro appro It works *perfectly* with vendor compiler! Trust me:-) A. Really? They understand -Wl? Yes. Well, I can tell for version 3, ^^^ I meant I can *not* tell for for version 3. A.

Bug in openssl-0.9.7-stable install_docs (head3)

2002-12-15 Thread Doug Kaufman
I know that the problem of head3 in the pod files has been brought up before, but I thought it had been resolved. Doing make install_docs, using the latest 0.9.7-stable files from cvs, I get an error in processing doc/crypto/engine.pod, related to head3. The man page is created, but is truncated

Re: Bug in openssl-0.9.7-stable install_docs (head3)

2002-12-15 Thread Geoff Thorpe
* Doug Kaufman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I know that the problem of head3 in the pod files has been brought up before, but I thought it had been resolved. Doing make install_docs, using the latest 0.9.7-stable files from cvs, I get an error in processing doc/crypto/engine.pod, related to

[openssl.org #401] Bug in openssl-0.9.7-stable install_docs (head3)

2002-12-15 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT
I know that the problem of head3 in the pod files has been brought up before, but I thought it had been resolved. Doing make install_docs, using the latest 0.9.7-stable files from cvs, I get an error in processing doc/crypto/engine.pod, related to head3. The man page is created, but is truncated

Re: [openssl.org #373] Fw: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32) ?

2002-12-15 Thread Louis Solomon [SteelBytes] via RT
yea, I think that patch should be ok. Louis Solomon www.SteelBytes.com - Original Message - From: Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [openssl.org #373] Fw: is

Re: [openssl.org #373] Fw: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32) ?

2002-12-15 Thread Geoff Thorpe
* Louis Solomon [SteelBytes] via RT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: yea, I think that patch should be ok. + CRYPTO_w_lock(CRYPTO_LOCK_SSL); if (init_ciphers) load_ciphers(); + CRYPTO_w_unlock(CRYPTO_LOCK_SSL); Is this one of those performance-critical cases were you should run a test

[openssl.org #373] Fw: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32) ?

2002-12-15 Thread Richard Levitte via RT
The patch was confirmed today, and thereby committed. This ticket is now resolved. -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List

Re: [openssl.org #373] Fw: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32)?

2002-12-15 Thread Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:49:02 -0500, Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: geoff Is this one of those performance-critical cases were you should run a geoff test outside the lock first? Ie. geoff geoffif (init_ciphers) geoff{ geoff