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.