> > > What if relocation's were not resolved correctly and > run-time switch doesn't really work as intended. > It's possible to confirm this indirectly by comparing results > for 'apps/openssl speed sha' and 'env OPENSSL_armcap=0 > apps/openssl speed sha'. Can you do that?
I have done the performance checking as you have pointed out.There is a performance difference, So run time switch is working as expected. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Andy Polyakov <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is compiling successfully and all openssl test are passing for ILP32 > > abi. > > There are remaining questions. > > The fact that tests pass is definitely good sign, but there still is an > open and burning question. What if relocations were not resolved > correctly and run-time switch doesn't really work as intended. It's > possible to confirm this indirectly by comparing results for > 'apps/openssl speed sha' and 'env OPENSSL_armcap=0 apps/openssl speed > sha'. Can you do that? > > Development branch has more ARMv8 code. Can you test that too? > > And last question is not really a question. All this ought to mean that > you have put together all those not-yet-upstreamed bits together, i.e. > glibc, multilib, kernel patches, huh? For public reference I want once > again to point out that additional ABI for AArch64 is work in very > progress, and so far the only way to compile 32-bit code and target > ARMv8 was to adhere to usual 32-bit ARM support (which does utilize > ARMv8 crypto extensions), and that is currently the supported way, for > good or bad. > > _______________________________________________ > openssl-dev mailing list > To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev >
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
