[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:39:00 +0200
From: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Call for musl-based distro blurbs
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> writes:
> On 06/07/2012 06:37 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Or since the aim is tiny, just use polarssl.
Or, hey, let's start a mussl!
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...il.com> http://chneukirchen.org
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.
