Bodo Moeller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 10:55:20AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Bodo Moeller:
>
> >>>> So, is backwards compatibility an important issue here
> >>>> and is it worth this kind of evil hack, or should we
> >>>> just add the parameters?
>
> >>> Backward compatibility is an important issue. Think "dynamic
> >>> library".
>
> >> The funny thing here is that if we just add the parameters, then on
> >> systems with "standard" calling convention old programs should run
> >> without any problems with newly compiled shared libraries: The new
> >> library functions will expect one parameter that is not actually there
> >> and will take whatever happens to be on the stack and pass it to the
> >> callback function as a "pointer argument"; the callback function in
> >> turn just ignores this extra (garbage) argument.
>
> > Although you are likely to get away with this, it isn't strictly legal.
>
> I know that. But how much effort would you think achieving real
> (guaranteed) compatability is worth?
Not much. As I (and others) have said, we don't have binary
compatibility anyway!
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
