Re: 4 pgcrypto regressions failures - 1 unsolved

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:19:37AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:39:26AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> > > They won't matter on older OpenSSL, as the macros will recast
> > > again. But on 0.9.7e the signature is:
> >
> > > void DES_ecb3_encrypt(const unsigned char *input, unsigned char *output,
> > > DES_key_schedule *ks1,DES_key_schedule *ks2,
> > > DES_key_schedule *ks3, int enc);
> >
> > > so it seems to me that with your patch the warnings will appear
> > > on newer OpenSSL. (Confirmed)
> >
> > Grumble --- you're right. It's probably not worth ifdef'ing the code to
> > suppress the warnings on 0.9.7a ...
>
> Hmmm...in 0.9.8 the signature is back to what it was in 0.9.7[a-d]:
>
> void DES_ecb3_encrypt(const_DES_cblock *input, DES_cblock *output,
> DES_key_schedule *ks1,DES_key_schedule *ks2,
> DES_key_schedule *ks3, int enc);

Ugh. As I see the old signature goes up to 0.9.7d, and only
0.9.7[e,f,g] have the new signature.

0.9.7e is released on Oct 2004. There is a chance that the 0.9.8 serie
was branched before that and later 0.9.8x releases will also
change signature. Or the change was mistake, and it was
reversed in 0.9.8 - but then why release 0.9.7[f,g] with new
signature?

When I saw that only 0.9.7[efg] have new signature I even
considered macrofying that. But now with 0.9.8 again different
I really would like to not to touch it, as I have no idea which
one will be the stable signature.

Comments?

--
marko