[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:37:50 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Call for musl-based distro blurbs
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 06:38:34PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> > Couldn't you just remove the idiotic asm generation and use the C
> > code? It's the compiler's job, not the build scrips' job, to generate
> > asm, and the compiler probably does a perfectly acceptable job, if not
> > a better job...
> >
> >
> The problem is to maintain support for future versions. In my view, the
> option with generating the asm code is easier and fully compatible with
> openssl (code from openssl). By adding own implementations of the crypto
> algorithms one can also add his own bugs. With this issue we can ask the
> developers of openssl - ask how they see the idea to remove perl from
> openssl.
I'm nearly sure they have C versions of the code too for cpus they
don't explicitly support. The asm is just a (premature) optimization,
so removing it should not harm anyone.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
