Collin Funk wrote: > The non-EVP APIs have been a bit hit and miss about using assembly > optimisations for a while now. > > Therefore, I think it might be safer to change them to avoid more > potential issues in the future. But I figured it was worth discussing on > list first. Any agreement/disagreement on this plan?
What exactly is your plan? To use the EVP APIs? In the past discussion [1][2], we found how to invoke malloc() for the context, while still being future-proof. Regarding the unit test, I wrote: > I would expect dlsym RTLD_NEXT to be more portable than LD_PRELOAD. and found out a few days later, that both approaches are just as portable one as the other. Bruno [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2025-09/msg00013.html [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2025-09/msg00039.html
