>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Polyakov >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:23 AM >To: openssl-dev@openssl.org >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [openssl.org #1223] make test fails on some systems in >0.9.8a > > >> Give it up, the developers aren't interested. I posted a core >> dump under Solaris and nobody cared enough to look at it. > >Somebody is not reading e-mail. The question was answered with '[see] >./PROBLEMS, "triggered gcc bugs" [section].' >
My bad, then. I did not see that. Seriously! Mea Culpa, I do apologize. >> I am pretty sure they know what the hell is going on. > >Anything special/subtle/uncommon we know is usually documented in >./PROBLEMS or ./FAQ depending on how often problem is encountered! > The Solaris 8 issue is NOT in the FAQ. Yes, it is in PROBLEMS in 0.9.8 - after you mentioned this I looked at it again and saw the values.c thing. But the answer there is to recompile gcc with values.c HOWEVER I respectfully submit that is is bogus crapola. This should be handled by the configure script, that is why you have it. The entire point of the configure script is to fixup stuff like this. Configure should build a small test program that checks for the Solaris linker bug and if it seg faults then it should put in the no-asm and spit out a message to the effect to patch the compiler or tell the GCC people to fix their compiler. Just my opinion!!! Nothing in PROBLEMS talks about compiling with no-asm as a workaround. >> 0.9.8a >> obviously makes use of some go-fast supercalifragelistic >> code that 0.9.7 avoids. I'm sure the developers are more >> enamoured of this fancy code than of getting 0.9.8 to compile >> reliably. > >All "supercalifragelistic" code can be switched off with no-asm. It's >your choice, and if you're so upset about 0.9.8 being more modern, just >configure with no-asm. > I'm just bugged that this isn't more documented. The problem with Solaris is that since it ships with no compiler everyone has to download a precompiled binary of gcc. Since these binaries don't have the value.c patch, openssl 0.9.8 compilation is going to blow chunks on a large majority of solaris systems. Not that I'm complaining but the FAQ has a entry for Alpha Tru64 and your going to tell me that is larger deployed base than Solaris x86!! >> There's a good chance that your problem, like mine, would be >> solved by completely recompiling gcc, > >*Both* problems *are* documented in ./PROBLEMS. His problem can be >resolved by upgrading binutils. > >> OpenSSL was the -only- source that required the >> compiler to be recompiled. > >Not if you configured with no-asm. > NOT documented in the PROBLEMS document in the paragraph that talks about the Solaris linker bug. >Now back to the beginning. "developers are not interested." Well, no, >I'm not interested to say "see accompanying documentation" over >and over >again Then move some of the stuff out of PROBLEMS and into the FAQ. Or at least put a FAQ question in the FAQ that tells people to read the PROBLEMS document. >and you're not in position to blaim me, as I do it in my spare >time. I see your not married, then. ;-) Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
