1. 21 1月, 2007 1 次提交
  2. 01 6月, 2005 1 次提交
  3. 20 2月, 2001 1 次提交
    • R
      Make all configuration macros available for application by making · cf1b7d96
      Richard Levitte 提交于
      sure they are available in opensslconf.h, by giving them names starting
      with "OPENSSL_" to avoid conflicts with other packages and by making
      sure e_os2.h will cover all platform-specific cases together with
      opensslconf.h.
      
      I've checked fairly well that nothing breaks with this (apart from
      external software that will adapt if they have used something like
      NO_KRB5), but I can't guarantee it completely, so a review of this
      change would be a good thing.
      cf1b7d96
  4. 31 1月, 2000 1 次提交
  5. 28 1月, 2000 1 次提交
    • U
      Document DSA and SHA. · 38e33cef
      Ulf Möller 提交于
      New function BN_pseudo_rand().
      Use BN_prime_checks_size(BN_num_bits(w)) rounds of Miller-Rabin when
      generating DSA primes (why not use BN_is_prime()?)
      38e33cef
  6. 05 9月, 1999 1 次提交
    • A
      SHA clean-up and (LP64) tune-up. · 7f7c318c
      Andy Polyakov 提交于
      "Clean-up" stands for the fact that it's using common message digest
      template ../md32_common.h and sha[1_]dgst.c are reduced down to
      '#define SHA_[01]' and then '#include "sha_locl.h"'. It stands "(LP64)"
      there because it's 64 bit platforms which benefit most from the tune-up.
      The updated code exhibits 40% performance improvement on IRIX64
      (sounds too good, huh? I probably should double check if it's not
      some cache trashing that was holding it back before), 28% - on
      Alpha Linux and 12% - Solaris 7/64.
      7f7c318c
  7. 12 6月, 1999 1 次提交
  8. 26 5月, 1999 1 次提交
  9. 10 5月, 1999 1 次提交
  10. 05 5月, 1999 1 次提交
  11. 27 4月, 1999 3 次提交
  12. 24 4月, 1999 1 次提交
  13. 21 4月, 1999 1 次提交
  14. 20 4月, 1999 1 次提交
  15. 22 3月, 1999 1 次提交
  16. 31 12月, 1998 1 次提交
    • R
      Fix version stuff: · 9cb0969f
      Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
      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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      9cb0969f
  17. 23 12月, 1998 2 次提交
  18. 22 12月, 1998 1 次提交
  19. 21 12月, 1998 3 次提交