Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> From: Ulf Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ulf> > What impact does that have on the performance?
> ulf>
> ulf> openssl speed is 15% slower for 1024 bit RSA signatures. That is
> ulf> totally unacceptable (except for the DEBUG version); I hope we don't
> ulf> have to have an argument about that.
>
> I'm starting to think that we should have BN_mul() and BN_sqr() break
> constness when they need to do a bn_wexpand(). After all, there are
> flags telling us if the BIGNUM is static or not, and if it isn't, it's
> been allocated on the heap.
Doesn't this mean you'll have to undo loads of constification? I do hope
you don't mean that you'll cast away the const?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
