From: Richard Levitte <[email protected]>
> (we're still talking about the case when the user explicitely asks for
> 64 bit pointers, saying "64" to the build scripts, right?)
Right.
> Hmm, previously, we had a hard case with 64=ARGV when the user gave
> "64", no choice there... Now, the build script adapts to what's
> possible (just 64 or 64=ARGV), and so does openssl.c. I'd say that
> should be pretty good as a default, so as far as I see, the choice the
> user has is to turn off 64=ARGV on systems where it's available... or
> would you rather have 64 (without =ARGV) the default when the user
> says "64" to the build scripts?
Having a fully automatic script means that, with my new compiler, I
can't (conveniently) test the plain "64" case. My (fully manual) plan
was to make the user specify, say, "64" or "64=ARGV", and act
accoringly (which would let me do whatever I want). Perhaps better
would be a three-choice scheme:
64 Automatic choice of "64" or "64=ARGV".
64=ARGV Manual choice of "64=ARGV".
64=NOARGV Manual choice of plain "64".
Easy for the normal victim, flexible enough for the perpetrator. Not
very hard to implement.
SMS.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [email protected]
Automated List Manager [email protected]
