this construct, and Ulf provided the following insight as to why;
> ANSI C compliant compilers must substitute "??)" for "]" because your
> terminal might not have a "]" key if you bought it in the early 1970s.
So we escape the final '?' to avoid this pathological case.
error strings and a hash table storing per-thread error state) go via an
ERR_FNS function table. The first time an ERR operation occurs, the
implementation that will be used (from then on) is set to the internal
"defaults" implementation if it has not already been set. The actual LHASH
tables are only accessed by this implementation.
This is primarily for modules that can be loaded at run-time and bound into
an application (or a shared-library version of OpenSSL). If the module has
its own statically-linked copy of OpenSSL code - this mechanism allows it
to *not* create and use ERR information in its own linked "ERR" code, but
instead to use and interact with the state stored in the loader
(application or shared library). The loader calls ERR_get_implementation()
and the return value is what the module should use when calling its own
copy of ERR_set_implementation().
dependant code has to directly increment the "references" value of each
such structure using the corresponding lock. Apart from code duplication,
this provided no "REF_CHECK/REF_PRINT" checking and violated
encapsulation.
me the same and that the correct option is -mcpu=i486. I'm assuming
-mcpu has been around for some time, and that it's therefore safe to
change all occurences of -m486 to -mcpu=i486.
setting stack (actually, array) values in ex_data. So only increment the
global counters if the underlying CRYPTO_get_ex_new_index() call succeeds.
This change doesn't make "ex_data" right (see the comment at the head of
ex_data.c to know why), but at least makes the source code marginally less
frustrating.
setting stack (actually, array) values in ex_data. So only increment the
global counters if the underlying CRYPTO_get_ex_new_index() call succeeds.
This change doesn't make "ex_data" right (see the comment at the head of
ex_data.c to know why), but at least makes the source code marginally less
frustrating.
