This is a discussion on Re: PATCH (Re: Cross compile OpenSSL in Linux using MinGW32) - Openssl ; On Fri, Oct 20, 2006, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > For reference. I was always wondering why do our dlls have to export > things by ordinal and not by name? It would make sense if we maintained > backward ...
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006, Andy Polyakov wrote:
> For reference. I was always wondering why do our dlls have to export
> things by ordinal and not by name? It would make sense if we maintained
> backward binary compatibility [so that incompatible functions with same
> name would be exported under different ordinals], but don't do that, at
> least not at present... A.
Well I can recall asking that ages ago and at IIRC the reason was precisely
that changes made might break binary compatibility.
Although we don't guarantee binary compatibility across major versions we do
across minor ones (unless there is a *very* good reason not to) and possibly
adding functions in a minor release might break things.
BTW on the subject of cross compiling what are the thoughts on making this
easier by adding a command line option to Configure which inserts a prefix to
the relevant compiler tools?
Dr Stephen N. Henson. Email, S/MIME and PGP keys: see homepage
OpenSSL project core developer and freelance consultant.
Funding needed! Details on homepage.
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List firstname.lastname@example.org
Automated List Manager email@example.com