Andy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > > > > on linux 2.2[.9] with egcs-1.1.2 and libc.5.4.46, the bignum test fails.
> > > > > with "./Configure no-asm linux-elf", test/bntest results in the attached
> > > > > output, which ends with "Left shift test failed!" the next test (exptest)
> > > > > appears to be caught in a loop and doesn't actually produce any output at
> > > > > all.
> > > >
> > > > Gak! For future reference, the last few lines of a BN test will usually
> > > > do! Anyway, I can't reproduce this ... could you apply this patch and
> > > > try again?
> > > How about following instead? Andy:-)
> > >
> > > *** crypto/bn/bn_asm.c.orig Mon Apr 19 20:27:29 1999
> > > --- crypto/bn/bn_asm.c Tue May 25 17:32:00 1999
> > > ***************
> > > *** 93,99 ****
> > > bn_check_num(num);
> > > if (num <= 0) return(c1);
> > >
> > > ! for (;;)
> > > {
> > > mul(rp[0],ap[0],w,c1);
> > > if (--num == 0) break;
> > > --- 93,99 ----
> > > bn_check_num(num);
> > > if (num <= 0) return(c1);
> > >
> > > ! for (;1;)
> > > {
> > > mul(rp[0],ap[0],w,c1);
> > > if (--num == 0) break;
> >
> > Eh? Why?
> Well, to be honest I don't really have a clear clue:-) It just works! I
> suppose egcs-1.1.2 optimizer takes it easier on for(;1;) than on
> for(;;)...
Hmmm ... so who is reporting this to the egcs guys?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
