Hello,
first of all, I'd like to thank all (and Andy Polyakov especially) for
the interesting ideas for SHA (and others) optimization. I extend one of
them (jumping $B variable) to all SHA-1 rounds and remove one mov
from all rounds. I attach the code you are free to use (or modify) in
any
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Henson via RT r...@openssl.org
To: var...@yahoo.com
Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 8:31 AM
Subject: [openssl.org #2751] [ENHANCEMENT] Request moving static
get_issuer_sk before X509_verify_cert
[var...@yahoo.com -
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012, Kevin Vargo via RT wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Henson via RT r...@openssl.org
To: var...@yahoo.com
Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 8:31 AM
Subject: [openssl.org #2751] [ENHANCEMENT] Request moving static
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2435user=guestpass=guest
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2440user=guestpass=guest
Are there plans to revisit this before 1.0.1 GA, and is anyone working
on this broken schema? It seems the GA would be a great time to get
this right.
Also
On 3/9/2012 1:45 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2435user=guestpass=guest
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2440user=guestpass=guest
Simpler is usually better... what specific behavior is the deleted code
below trying to accomplish? Is
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2435user=guestpass=guest
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2440user=guestpass=guest
Simpler is usually better... what specific behavior is the deleted code
below trying to accomplish?
Correct question is not what stat-ing *is* trying
Also from win32's asm build, all of the script invocations forgot to
include the nasm/masm(ml64) command line arg...
What does it mean exactly?
the entire windows build
doesn't appear to be very deterministic in terms of picking an assembler
and sticking to it.
Assembler is picked at
On 3/9/2012 4:55 PM, Andy Polyakov wrote:
Also from win32's asm build, all of the script invocations forgot to
include the nasm/masm(ml64) command line arg...
What does it mean exactly?
I'll get you a patch shortly, but in short, it meant that do_amd64
was emitting an ntdll.mak line to
I have successfully cross-compiled a FIPS_capable libcrypto.a for my
target (NetBSD on PowerPC), and successfully built the FIPS tests and
run them on the target - all pass/fail as expected. I also built a
simple app and built that with the library, and ran that successfully.
I have (see other
