https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5423
On 2/20/18, 2:10 PM, "Salz, Rich via openssl-users"
<openssl-users@openssl.org> wrote:
I agree, let's just use malloc for the reasons you said. PR later today.
On 2/20/18, 2:08 PM, "Viktor Dukhovni" <openssl-us...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Norm Green
<norm.gr...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
>
> Your patch tests clean, however there is an easier way which avoids
malloc:
Great, so it was the unaligned "buf". Great. As for malloc vs. tricks
to
align the stack-based array, I see little need to avoid malloc() this
is a
test function, not a performance-critical library function. Exercising
OPENSSL_malloc() is arguably a feature. :-)
That said, I have no religion on which approach is taken to align "buf".
I prefer "malloc" because it unasks the question of which type to use
in an array or union to ensure the "proper" alignment. Using any of
"long" or "long long" is likely good enough, but could prove more
fragile
as the code evolves.
--
Viktor.
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
