From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/976 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Call for musl-based distro blurbs Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:37:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20120607163750.GF163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120607140843.GX17860@port70.net> <4FD0C208.6050004@int3.at> <20120607144916.GA163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <874nqnqgfi.fsf@gmail.com> <20120607154701.GC163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4FD0D2DE.4020208@int3.at> <4FD0D15C.3050907@lightcubesolutions.com> <20120607161649.GD163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339087362 2515 80.91.229.3 (7 Jun 2012 16:42:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:42:42 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-977-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jun 07 18:42:40 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Scfn2-0002Dx-PN for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:42:28 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 28364 invoked by uid 550); 7 Jun 2012 16:42:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 28356 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2012 16:42:28 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:976 Archived-At: 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