On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 06:43:32PM +0100, Andy Polyakov wrote: > Hi, > > >>> Andy, do you think the changes in the config scripts can already be > >>> committed? > >> Sure. Basically, explicit confirmation that everything works would > >> have sufficed. Only one remaining thing. As for config patch, I > >> don't quite understand. From what was discussed I've got impression > >> that LE system can only execute LE binaries. But then why would > >> config suggest to run ./Configure linux-ppc64le manually? Output for > >> 'uname -a' would suffice. > > > > Everything works. > > > > Regarding the config patch. I did the simplest change in order to > > use -DL_ENDIAN instead of -DB_ENDIAN. Currently is there a way that > > already is used in the config scripts to do that automatically? > > To answer the question no. Note that -D[LB]_ENDIAN is actually optional, > in sense that it can be omitted. Well, if present, it has to reflect > correct endianness... > > And let me rephrase my request. Could you please submit output from > 'uname -a' so that I can modify config up to expectations?
Are sure that using uname output is a good idea? I'm wondering if this can restrict cross compiling. Maybe a way to override it would be necessary. I think that `uname -m` fits better here: $ uname -m ppc64le > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org > Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
