Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:06:11 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <>
Subject: Re: Call for musl-based distro blurbs

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.



Luca Barbato

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.