same one). However, the first will temporarily break things until the
second comes through. :-)
The safestack.h handling was mapping compare callbacks that externally
are of the type (int (*)(type **,type **)) into the underlying callback
type used by stack.[ch], which is (int (*)(void *,void *)). After some
degree of digging, it appears that the callback type in the underlying
stack code should use double pointers too - when the compare operations
are invoked (from sk_find and sk_sort), they are being used by bsearch
and qsort to compare two pointers to pointers. This change corrects the
prototyping (by only casting to the (void*,void*) form at the moment
it is needed by bsearch and qsort) and makes the mapping in safestack.h
more transparent. It also changes from "void*" to "char*" to stay in
keeping with stack.[ch]'s assumed base type of "char".
Also - the "const" situation was that safestack.h was throwing away
"const"s, and to compound the problem - a close examination of stack.c
showed that (const char **) is not really achieving what it is supposed
to when the callback is being invoked, what is needed is
(const char * const *). So the underlying stack.[ch] and the mapping
macros in safestack.h have all been altered to correct this.
What will follow are the vast quantities of "const" corrections required
in stack-dependant code that was being let "slip" through when
safestack.h was discarding "const"s. These now all come up as compiler
warnings.
cast their type-specific STACK into a real STACK and call the underlying
sk_*** function. The problem is that if the STACK_OF(..) parameter being
passed in has a "const *" qualifier, it is discarded by the cast.
I'm currently implementing a fix for this but in the mean-time, this is
one case I noticed (a few type-specific sk_**_num() functions pass in
const type-specific stacks). If there are other errors in the code where
consts are being discarded, we will similarly not notice them. yuck.
1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b
2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
.2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
