On 03/09/2015 04:38, Salz, Rich wrote:
We are considering a big cleanup to the memory-allocation API’s in the
next release.
Please take a look at the attached documentation, which describes
**ALL** of the public functions, and let us know if it will cause a
problem.
A few practical
1. I trust that functions to allocate specific data
types (such as bignums) are not changed by this.
They are not.
2. Macros that take zero arguments (such as
"OPENSSL_malloc_init()") are not accepted by all
compilers. In my own API designs this has forced
me to give such
> > Remove {OPENSSL,CRYPTO}_strdup; use BUF_strdup.
Reconsidering, I did this backward. The right thing is to use OPENSSL_strdup,
not BUF_strdup.
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:20:47PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Remove {OPENSSL,CRYPTO}_strdup; use BUF_strdup.
My DANESSL library (used by Exim) uses OPENSSL_strdup. Any reason
to not leave a compatibility #define behind?
There are likely other projects using that function.
[ Yes we're
We are considering a big cleanup to the memory-allocation API's in the next
release.
Please take a look at the attached documentation, which describes *ALL* of the
public functions, and let us know if it will cause a problem.
Thanks.
--
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
IM:
