- 04 9月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Bodo Möller 提交于
symbols for debugging are defined.
-
- 04 8月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
Fix warnings with BIO_dump_indent().
-
- 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.
-
- 27 2月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 05 2月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
temporary BIGNUMs. BN_CTX still uses a fixed number of BIGNUMs, but the BN_CTX implementation could now easily be changed.
-
- 04 2月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 24 1月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 31 7月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Bodo Möller 提交于
-
- 21 6月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
file from a bio or fp. Added some more constification to the BN library.
-
- 05 6月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 20 5月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
This also avoids the problems with SC4.2 and unpatched SC5. Submitted by: Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>
-
- 15 5月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Bodo Möller 提交于
-
- 13 5月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
Submitted by: Richard Levitte <richard@levitte.org>
-
- 23 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 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
-
- 16 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
when they cause the destination to expand. To see how evil this is try this: #include <pem.h> main() { BIGNUM *bn = NULL; int i; bn = BN_new(); BN_hex2bn(&bn, "FFFFFFFF"); BN_add_word(bn, 1); printf("Value %s\n", BN_bn2hex(bn)); } This would typically fail before the patch. It also screws up if you comment out the BN_hex2bn line above or in any situation where BN_add_word() causes the number of BN_ULONGs in the result to change (try doubling the number of FFs).
-
- 22 3月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 08 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
-