- 14 12月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
functions need to be constified, and therefore meant a number of easy changes a little everywhere. Now, if someone could explain to me why OBJ_dup() cheats...
-
- 02 12月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Geoff Thorpe 提交于
casts) used in the lhash code are about as horrible and evil as they can be. For starters, the callback prototypes contain empty parameter lists. Yuck. This first change defines clearer prototypes - including "typedef"'d function pointer types to use as "hash" and "compare" callbacks, as well as the callbacks passed to the lh_doall and lh_doall_arg iteration functions. Now at least more explicit (and clear) casting is required in all of the dependant code - and that should be included in this commit. The next step will be to hunt down and obliterate some of the function pointer casting being used when it's not necessary - a particularly evil variant exists in the implementation of lh_doall.
-
- 08 11月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
I didn't apply all his patches yet, since I have some hesitance about unconstifying. To be pondered.
-
- 02 6月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
like Malloc, Realloc and especially Free conflict with already existing names on some operating systems or other packages. That is reason enough to change the names of the OpenSSL memory allocation macros to something that has a better chance of being unique, like prepending them with OPENSSL_. This change includes all the name changes needed throughout all C files.
-
- 18 3月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Bodo Möller 提交于
-
- 04 3月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Bodo Möller 提交于
-
- 04 2月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 31 1月, 2000 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
eliminate some of the -Wcast-qual warnings (debug-ben-strict target)
-
- 27 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 24 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Bodo Möller 提交于
Submitted by: Reviewed by: PR:
-
- 20 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 18 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 22 3月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 17 1月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 31 12月, 1998 1 次提交
-
-
由 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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- 23 12月, 1998 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
- 22 12月, 1998 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
- 21 12月, 1998 3 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-