OpenSSL 0.9.7c 30 Sep 2003
built on: Thu Nov 13 23:47:30 2003
platform: VC-NT
options: bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(idx,cisc,4,long) idea(int)
blowfish(idx)
compiler: cl /MDd /W3 /WX /Zi /Yd /Od /nologo -DOPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32
-D_DEBUG
-DL_ENDIAN -DWIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN -DDEBUG
OpenSSL 0.9.7c 30 Sep 2003
built on: Thu Nov 13 23:47:30 2003
platform: VC-NT
options: bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(idx,cisc,4,long) idea(int)
blowfis
h(idx)
compiler: cl /MDd /W3 /WX /Zi /Yd /Od /nologo -DOPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32
-D_DEBUG
-DL_ENDIAN -DWIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN -DDEBUG
The attached files in my last entry from 2003-11-12 apparently did not
make it here into the repository. I got requests from readers who mentioned
this (thanks) and indeed, I do not see them either. Here is the diff file
for
the 0.9.7c source
(See attached file: diff-0.9.7c_vs_small.tar.gz)
The second file which should have gone into the request tracker
repository; a script which applies the patches to the 0.9.7c source
tree. I have sent this file on 2003-11-12 but it did not make it intpo
the request tracker.
(See attached file: patch-e.sh)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Oct 29 08:34:31 2003]:
Hello!
It's me agaig :)
I change speed.c for benchmarking AES methods too.
It was easy :)
May be it will help you.
Thanks, I have applied your changes to CVS.
Best regards,
Lutz
This is really a very small issue, but it bothers us for quite a while.
The x509.h file contains the prototype for two RSA-related functions,
RSAPublicKey_dup() and RSAPrivateKey_dup(). Being included into the
source file with the rsa.h header, the double definition clashes with
the one defined
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
Hey Lev,
On November 18, 2003 08:28 pm, Lev Walkin wrote:
This is really a very small issue, but it bothers us for quite a while.
Which version are you seeing this in? IIRC, I corrected this same clash in
CVS.
0.9.7c. But I've been seeing that in virtually all older
On November 18, 2003 08:46 pm, Lev Walkin wrote:
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
Hey Lev,
On November 18, 2003 08:28 pm, Lev Walkin wrote:
This is really a very small issue, but it bothers us for quite a
while.
Which version are you seeing this in? IIRC, I corrected this same
clash in CVS.