[openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

Current releases are much better about 64bit issues, including int/size_t. Please open a new RT if there are any remaining problems __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List

Re: [openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

1. File (socket) handles are ints. Why not create a special type called file_handle_t, that changes sizes with platforms that have different requirements of file handle types (read windows)? Just a side note. As already pointed out in another context, it's actually *safe* to cast SOCKET to

Re: [openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

Agreed on both points :) Andy Polyakov via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/7/2003 5:39:49 AM 1. File (socket) handles are ints. Why not create a special type called file_handle_t, that changes sizes with platforms that have different requirements of file handle types (read windows)? Just a side

Re: [openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

Andy, Since I started all of this with my patch, let me respond to what I believe the real problems are: 1. File (socket) handles are ints. Why not create a special type called file_handle_t, that changes sizes with platforms that have different requirements of file handle types (read windows)?

Re: [openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

... or does size_t matter:-) I had a look at BRANCH_WIN64 last night and here're some thoughts. First of all I want to point out that I had rather fast look so that this is probably not a final judgment:-) As discussed earlier Win64 implements P64 programming model and so the discussion started

[openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

John, I didn't notice this before, but VC-64.pl is missing from your patch. Could you please send it to us? I've set up my laptop (running W2K, which I assume will be OK) with the platform SDK you mentioned and will do a testrun as soon as I can. -- Richard Levitte

[openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 17:30:55 2002]: That's funny, it's in my image, and I just zipped the entire thing up. And now I discovered that 64all.bat is missing as well. *sigh* -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL Project

Re: [openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:05:57 +0200 (METDST), Richard Levitte via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt rt [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 17:30:55 2002]: rt rt That's funny, it's in my image, and I just zipped the entire thing up. rt rt And now I discovered that

Re: [openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

Here you go... Richard Levitte via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/02 02:05PM [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 17:30:55 2002]: That's funny, it's in my image, and I just zipped the entire thing up. And now I discovered that 64all.bat is missing as well. *sigh* -- Richard Levitte begin 644

[openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

I understand the concern here, but I very strongly disagree with the solution. Casting everything from size_t to int is going in the wrong direction. I'll work on moving int to size_t where needed. If someone can tell me how to simulate have a 64-bit size_t on Linux, it would make it

Re: [openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

Richard, Actually, I agree completely. Frankly I was a little afraid to say it, as it entails so many changes to the code base. The entire concept of the P64 memory model not allowing int's to be used naturally is foreign to the ideals set out by the C language. However there is a slim