Nicolas, Fair enough, but it's the rest of the expression that bothers me - what does the second argument sequence do? Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Nicolas Cellier Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:23 PM To: pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes:
Hello all,
Do you have any thoughts on whether a wrapper for OpenSSL should be a plugin
or based on FFI/Alien? Would
blocking calls be best handled by using OS threads or non-blocking sockets? In either case, I would envision using semaphores to block only the calling Process instance.
Loosely related, can you understand (and explain to me - perhaps the hard part<g>) the following syntax:
void (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback(void))(int mode,int type,const char *file,int line);
It looks to me like a shotgun wedding of an incomplete typedef of a function pointer type and a function prototype. Any ideas?
Bill
Doesn't the CRYPTO_get_locking_callback function returns a pointer to a function with no argument (void) and no return value (void), or something like that ? Nicolas _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project