Fix OpenSSL error handling for EOF (support for OpenSSL 3.2) #14169
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
On Windows it looks like you have to check |
beta-ziliani
reviewed
Jan 4, 2024
Co-authored-by: Beta Ziliani <beta@manas.tech>
|
Can't we add OpenSSL 3.2 to the OpenSSL CI to check this change? |
|
We could, but it requires some non-trivial additions to the CI configuration. |
beta-ziliani
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2024
1 task
This was referenced Jan 10, 2024
Closed
straight-shoota
added a commit
to straight-shoota/crystal
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2024
…rystal-lang#14169)" This reverts commit 7df0b2e.
straight-shoota
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2024
|
This got eventually reverted in #14217 due to #14200 (comment) A new approach is happening in #14219 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is following the reasoning from #14168 (comment)
I'm not entirely sure this is exactly correct API usage. The documentation is not very extensive. But judging from the resulting behaviour, and backed by available documentation it seems to be more correct than the current implementation.