Remove redundant includes from dtls1.h

There were a set of includes in dtls1.h which are now redundant due to the
libssl opaque work. This commit removes those includes, which also has the
effect of resolving one issue preventing building on windows (i.e. the
include of winsock.h)

Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>

diff --git a/include/openssl/dtls1.h b/include/openssl/dtls1.h
index 542ae04627b59b8b7840fa776e9cfe2ad9059bbd..f214296d4b924be52af5dcab75e44c131a64977e 100644 (file)
--- a/include/openssl/dtls1.h
+++ b/include/openssl/dtls1.h
@@ -60,25 +60,6 @@
 #ifndef HEADER_DTLS1_H
 # define HEADER_DTLS1_H
 
-# include <openssl/buffer.h>
-# include <openssl/pqueue.h>
-# ifdef OPENSSL_SYS_VMS
-#  include <resource.h>
-#  include <sys/timeb.h>
-# endif
-# ifdef OPENSSL_SYS_WIN32
-/* Needed for struct timeval */
-#  include <winsock.h>
-# elif defined(OPENSSL_SYS_NETWARE) && !defined(_WINSOCK2API_)
-#  include <sys/timeval.h>
-# else
-#  if defined(OPENSSL_SYS_VXWORKS)
-#   include <sys/times.h>
-#  else
-#   include <sys/time.h>
-#  endif
-# endif
-
 #ifdef  __cplusplus
 extern "C" {
 #endif

diff --git a/ssl/d1_lib.c b/ssl/d1_lib.c
index a1d203223ca51c3395ef1a6941bd6ec015b7aab8..6946b32deab00e049a5058958c0ecc9e8a13cd99 100644 (file)
--- a/ssl/d1_lib.c
+++ b/ssl/d1_lib.c
@@ -64,6 +64,12 @@
 
 #if defined(OPENSSL_SYS_VMS)
 # include <sys/timeb.h>
+#elif defined(OPENSSL_SYS_NETWARE) && !defined(_WINSOCK2API_)
+# include <sys/timeval.h>
+#elif defined(OPENSSL_SYS_VXWORKS)
+# include <sys/times.h>
+#elif !defined(OPENSSL_SYS_WIN32)
+# include <sys/time.h>
 #endif
 
 static void get_current_time(struct timeval *t);

diff --git a/ssl/record/record.h b/ssl/record/record.h
index 29c74d7cb990444195a10b9040af14d70eca8027..6bccb71d837583c25027779468d5f23cc3d8cff5 100644 (file)
--- a/ssl/record/record.h
+++ b/ssl/record/record.h
@@ -109,6 +109,8 @@
  *
  */
 
+#include <openssl/pqueue.h>
+
 /*****************************************************************************
  *                                                                           *
  * These structures should be considered PRIVATE to the record layer. No     *