Hi,
At 25 Jul 2005 23:36:41 +0200 Andy Polyakov wrote:
> > Can you double-confirm this? MSDN mentions -D_WIN32_WCE=$(CEVersion)
> > and you suggest -D_WIN32_WCE=$(WCEVERSION). Is one wrong or are both
> > right?
>
> OK, I can see that WCEVERSION is defined in 3rd party wcecompat.mak,
> but I woul
I found
reference that at least _WIN32_WCE is defined through project
preferences as -D_WIN32_WCE=$(CEVersion).
I think we need to fix this problem before everything else. The simplest
way to fix this problem is to add -D_WIN32_WCE=$(WCEVERSION) after
$(WCETARGETDEFS) in makefiles.
Can you d
I found
reference that at least _WIN32_WCE is defined through project
preferences as -D_WIN32_WCE=$(CEVersion).
I think we need to fix this problem before everything else. The simplest
way to fix this problem is to add -D_WIN32_WCE=$(WCEVERSION) after
$(WCETARGETDEFS) in makefiles.
Can you dou
This has now been implemented in 0.9.9 but using a somewhat different
syntax.
Ticket resolved.
Steve.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List opens
Ton Hospel wrote:
...
Gives:
Floating point exception (core dumped)
Reason: unlike in BN_div_word, in BN_mod_word w is not checked for being 0
ok
PS:
these functions are really bad in that you can't distinguish
between failure and a real 0 result. Maybe they should be
returning (BN_ULONG
Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
test BN_sqr
make[2]: *** [test_bn] Error 139
>>>
>>>Could you examine
>>>https://www.aet.tu-cottbus.de/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=1146 and see if
>>>you confirm that it's identical problem.
>>
>>
>>I am sorry but I cannot reproduce the problem any more. I did th
Hi,
At 25 Jul 2005 11:27:32 +0200 Andy Polyakov wrote:
> I've been browsing through MSDN and didn't quite figured out where
> _WIN32_WCE and platform-specific pre-processor macros get
> assigned/defined. Most notably I used to believe that they're pre-
> defined by compiler driver itself, but [thi
Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
test BN_sqr
make[2]: *** [test_bn] Error 139
>>>
>>>Could you examine
>>>https://www.aet.tu-cottbus.de/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=1146 and see if
>>>you confirm that it's identical problem.
>>
>>
>>I am sorry but I cannot reproduce the problem any more. I did th
>>>test BN_sqr
>>>make[2]: *** [test_bn] Error 139
>>
>>Could you examine
>>https://www.aet.tu-cottbus.de/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=1146 and see if
>>you confirm that it's identical problem.
>
>
> I am sorry but I cannot reproduce the problem any more. I did these steps
> after
> reporting the
I've chosen to unify VC-32.pl and VC-CE.pl instead. I mean VC-CE.pl is
gone now and VC-32.pl is expected to take care of all Windows flavors,
Win32, Win64 and WinCE. See http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=14275
for reference.
I see. I downloaded the latest 0.9.8-snapshot, and it generates correc
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [openssl.org #1171] Unable to pass make test 2
> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:39:36 +0200 (METDST)
> From: Andy Polyakov via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: openssl-dev@openssl.org
>
>
>> test BN_
SHA-256/-512 x86_64 assembler implementation is available in HEAD now.
As usual, code was benchmarked on Opteron only and out of curiosity I'd
like to hear from people with EM64T hardware. The test it grab latest
openssl-SNAP-* at ftp://ftp.openssl.org/snapshot/ and './config no-asm;
make; apps
12 matches
Mail list logo
