BCM5805 and BCM5820 units. So far I've merely taken a skim over the code
and changed a few things from their original contributed source
(de-shadowing variables, removing variables from the header, and
re-constifying some functions to remove warnings). If this gives
compilation problems on any system, please let me know. We will hopefully
know for sure whether this actually functions on a system with the relevant
hardware in a day or two. :-)
from the print routines.
Reorganisation of OCSP code: initial print routines in ocsp_prn.c. Doesn't
work fully because OCSP extensions aren't reimplemented yet.
Implement some ASN1 functions needed to compile OCSP code.
authenticated attributes: this is used to retain the
original encoding and not break signatures.
Support for a SET OF which reorders the STACK when
encoding a structure. This will be used with the
PKCS7 code.
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...
for its ASN1 operations as well as the old style function
pointers (i2d, d2i, new, free). Change standard extensions
to support this.
Fix a warning in BN_mul(), bn_mul.c about uninitialised 'j'.
DECLARE/IMPLEMENT macros now exist to create type (and prototype) safe
wrapper functions that avoid the use of function pointer casting yet retain
type-safety for type-specific callbacks. However, most of the usage within
OpenSSL itself doesn't really require the extra function because the hash
and compare callbacks are internal functions declared only for use by the
hash table. So this change catches all those cases and reimplements the
functions using the base-level LHASH prototypes and does per-variable
casting inside those functions to convert to the appropriate item type.
The exception so far is in ssl_lib.c where the hash and compare callbacks
are not static - they're exposed in ssl.h so their prototypes should not be
changed. In this last case, the IMPLEMENT_LHASH_*** macros have been left
intact.
One problem that looked like a problem in bn_recp.c at first turned
out to be a BN_mul bug. An example is given in bn_recp.c; finding
the bug responsible for this is left as an exercise.
course, that means we need to handle the cases where the two arrays to
bn_mul_recursive() and bn_mul_part_recursive() differ in size.
I haven't yet changed the comments that describe bn_mul_recursive()
and bn_mul_part_recursive(). I want this to be tested by more people
before I consider this change final. Please test away!
so these macros probably shouldn't be used like that at all. So, this
change removes the misleading comment and also adds an implicit trailing
semi-colon to the DECLARE macros so they too don't require one.
