nssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] Replacing CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS on migration 101 to
110
Wow! Thanks.
You are saying to just drop out this array, and the two
CRYPTO_set_..._callback() functions, and the functions they reference?
Charles
From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-u
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:14 PM
To: HYPERLINK "mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org"openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] Replacing CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS on migration 101 to 110
OpenSSL 1.1.x handle the locking themselves. You don't need to install the
locking call b
: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] Replacing CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS on migration 101 to
110
OpenSSL 1.1.x handle the locking themselves. You don't need to install the
locking call backs and don't need to provide locking functionality.
Pauli
--
Oracle
Dr
Charles Mills [mailto:charl...@mcn.org]
Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2017 6:09 AM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: [openssl-users] Replacing CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS on migration 101 to 110
I am migrating a multi-threaded Windows application from OpenSSL 1.0.1h to
1.1.0f.
I am using the Shi
I am migrating a multi-threaded Windows application from OpenSSL 1.0.1h to
1.1.0f.
I am using the Shining Light pre-built Windows DLLs.
The code, which I wrote some time ago, has a statement HANDLE
Comm::sslMutexArray[CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS];
The array is referenced by my sslLockingFu
