PR2401: Typos in FAQ
Also rewrite section on compiler bugs; Matt pointed out that it has some grammatical issues. Reviewed-by: Emilia Kasper <emilia@openssl.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
3609b02305
commit
76b10e13c2
23
FAQ
23
FAQ
@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ whatever name they choose.
|
|||||||
The ways to print out the oneline format of the DN (Distinguished Name) have
|
The ways to print out the oneline format of the DN (Distinguished Name) have
|
||||||
been extended in version 0.9.7 of OpenSSL. Using the new X509_NAME_print_ex()
|
been extended in version 0.9.7 of OpenSSL. Using the new X509_NAME_print_ex()
|
||||||
interface, the "-nameopt" option could be introduded. See the manual
|
interface, the "-nameopt" option could be introduded. See the manual
|
||||||
page of the "openssl x509" commandline tool for details. The old behaviour
|
page of the "openssl x509" command line tool for details. The old behaviour
|
||||||
has however been left as default for the sake of compatibility.
|
has however been left as default for the sake of compatibility.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* What is a "128 bit certificate"? Can I create one with OpenSSL?
|
* What is a "128 bit certificate"? Can I create one with OpenSSL?
|
||||||
@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ software from the US only weak encryption algorithms could be freely exported
|
|||||||
inadequate. A relaxation of the rules allowed the use of strong encryption but
|
inadequate. A relaxation of the rules allowed the use of strong encryption but
|
||||||
only to an authorised server.
|
only to an authorised server.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Two slighly different techniques were developed to support this, one used by
|
Two slightly different techniques were developed to support this, one used by
|
||||||
Netscape was called "step up", the other used by MSIE was called "Server Gated
|
Netscape was called "step up", the other used by MSIE was called "Server Gated
|
||||||
Cryptography" (SGC). When a browser initially connected to a server it would
|
Cryptography" (SGC). When a browser initially connected to a server it would
|
||||||
check to see if the certificate contained certain extensions and was issued by
|
check to see if the certificate contained certain extensions and was issued by
|
||||||
@ -723,16 +723,15 @@ possible alternative might be to switch to GCC.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
* Test suite still fails, what to do?
|
* Test suite still fails, what to do?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Another common reason for failure to complete some particular test is
|
Another common reason for test failures is bugs in the toolchain
|
||||||
simply bad code generated by a buggy component in toolchain or deficiency
|
or run-time environment. Known cases of this are documented in the
|
||||||
in run-time environment. There are few cases documented in PROBLEMS file,
|
PROBLEMS file, please review it before you beat the drum. Even if you
|
||||||
consult it for possible workaround before you beat the drum. Even if you
|
don't find anything in that file, please do consider the possibility
|
||||||
don't find solution or even mention there, do reserve for possibility of
|
of a compiler bug. Compiler bugs often appear in rather bizarre ways,
|
||||||
a compiler bug. Compiler bugs might appear in rather bizarre ways, they
|
they never make sense, and tend to emerge when you least expect
|
||||||
never make sense, and tend to emerge when you least expect them. In order
|
them. One thing to try is to reduce the level of optimization (such
|
||||||
to identify one, drop optimization level, e.g. by editing CFLAG line in
|
as by editing the CFLAG variable line in the top-level Makefile),
|
||||||
top-level Makefile, recompile and re-run the test.
|
and then recompile and re-run the test.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* I think I've found a bug, what should I do?
|
* I think I've found a bug, what should I do?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user