within SSL_MKEY_MASK or SSL_AUTH_MASK, they are within SSL_EXP_MASK. So, the
original variable has to be used instead of the already masked variable.
Submitted by: Richard Levitte <levitte@stacken.kth.se>
Reviewed by: Ralf S. Engelschall
without -debug option to mk1mf.pl. Change _export to is_export (_export is
a reserved word under VC++). Add yucky function prototype function pointer
casts. Sanitise the included files in crypto/x509v3.
Also changed ssleay.exe target to openssl.exe
[Eric A. Young, (from changes to C2Net SSLeay, integrated by Mark Cox)]
Fix so that the version number in the master secret, when passed
via RSA, checks that if TLS was proposed, but we roll back to SSLv3
(because the server will not accept higher), that the version number
is 0x03,0x01, not 0x03,0x00
[Eric A. Young, (from changes to C2Net SSLeay, integrated by Mark Cox)]
Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:
1. merge various obsolete readme texts into doc/ssleay.txt
where we collect the old documents and readme texts.
2. remove the first part of files where I'm already sure that we no longer need
them because of three reasons: either they are just temporary files which
were left by Eric or they are preserved original files where I've verified
that the diff is also available in the CVS via "cvs diff -rSSLeay_0_8_1b"
or they were renamed (as it was definitely the case for the crypto/md/
stuff).
We've still a horrible mess under crypto/bn/asm/. There for a lot of files
I'm sure whether we need them or not. So, when someone knows it better, feel
free to cleanup there.
1. Add *lots* of missing prototypes for static ssl functions.
2. VC++ doesn't understand the 'LL' suffix for 64 bits constants: change bn.org
3. Add a few missing prototypes in pem.org
Fix mk1mf.pl so it outputs a Makefile that doesn't choke Win95.
Fix mkdef.pl so it doesn't truncate longer names.
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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
