FYI dsa_lib.c and dh_lib.c in openssl-0.9.6b and latest snapshot

[Scott Burch]

Yeah,

Perhaps there is a bug, but I had these same problems with gcc on
Solaris. However I just checked and there are 2 patches for the Forte
compiler 6 update 2 available as of October 1:

They are:

111685-02 C++ 5.3: Patch for Forte Developer 6 Update 2 C++ compiler

and

111678-04 Compiler Common 6.2: Patch Forte Developer 6 Update 2, C++ F77
F95.

I have already applied the very latest libc and C++ library patches as
well as the latest linker patches...but maybe with the additional
compiler patches these changes won't have to be made. I suppose it is
possible that the linker and library patches might have fixed issues
with gcc but not Forte?

I'll try the additional patches tomorrow and see how they work. If there
is a fix beyond changing source in openssl then I will report this. If
anyone already knows the answer then please report it to the list. If
Jason Reid or Keith Watson are monitoring this list perhaps they can
comment. I will try with gcc tomorrow and see how that works...I know I
had problems before on the January 2001 release of Solaris. Jason and
Keith used the April 2001 release of Solaris 8, 5/98 Solaris 2.6,
Solaris 7 11/9 with Forte C 6 Update 1 and gcc 2.95.2.

I'll keep quite unless I find something useful.

-Scott

On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 19:40, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > Scott Burch wrote:
> []
> > The source changes I made are below for openssl (suggested by several here):
> > 
> > Please change line 69 in openssl-0.9.6b/crypto/dsa/dsa_lib.c from
> >   static DSA_METHOD *default_DSA_method;
> > to
> >   static DSA_METHOD *default_DSA_method = NULL;
> 
> Hmmm...
> Such variables should be initialized by a compiler/linker/whatether.
> Interesting to see if this is in some C specs or not.  Gcc with
> GNU ld will definitely initialize the variable in question to
> zero (NULL = 0, isn't it?).  Note for example numerous flame wars
> on linux-kernel when Linus rejected a patch that contains
> initializations like this -- due to resulting executable growth.
> That is, without initializer, code works just like with it, but
> an initializer makes resulting executable bigger.  I almost shure
> this is a bug in compiler or linker and NOT in the code, but I
> don't know specs that says so.  Well, those static variables can
> be initialized explicitly as a work around buggy compiling
> environment...
> 
> Regards,
>  Michael.
> 
-- 
Scott Burch
http://www.camberwind.com/