On 11/1/08, Andy Polyakov via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Could you please test the other suggested bn_lcl.h modification? While > >> you're on it... > > > > I cannot actually test it... I can compile and users may test. > > I don't have a win64 machine. > > > How is it tested? Implicitly by an application being inter-operable with > another? Meaning that only only part of algorithms is tested...
I sent them the sha512t test from OpenSSL output. > I managed to produce them myself with > mingw-w64-bin_x86-64-linux_20080921.tar.bz2. Modified sha512.c is fine, Great! My environment is gcc-4.3.2, binutils-CVS-head, mingw-w64-SVN-head as I found many issues in older releases. > modified bn_lcl.h gives ~2x improvement. All tests pass except for the > last Whirlpool test. It's a compiler bug, because if I drop optimization > level to -O1 when compiling wp_block.c, the test passes. Can you please send this hank as attachment? > Strangely enough the code in question is not compiled in VC-* build... > Basically there is no need for GetModuleHandle("avdapi32") and > consequent GetProcAddress calls, because the functions in question are > present on all WinNT *and* Win9x. On latter they do nothing, but they > are present, so that application won't suffer from startup errors if you > link them explicitly. So do we need it or don't we? Thanks! Alon. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]