> I noticed that the Microsoft Assembler compiler support has gone, > however, I also found that ms\do_ms.bat does NOT use assembly (no-asm > flag is used), while ms\do_win64a.bat silently expects nasm compiler
No. 1.0.0 assumes ml64, while 1.0.1 *probes* if nasm is present, and if not, falls down to ml64: cmd /c "nasm -f win64 -v" >NUL: 2>&1 if %errorlevel% neq 0 goto ml64 uptable.asm being generated and compiled even with no-asm is intentional. It has nothing to do with performance, but with so called OPENSSL_Applink. In 32-bit build it's managed without assembler module thanks to inline assembler support in compiler, which is not an option for 64-bit compilers. This should answer related questions posed in follow-up message. > (according to INSTALL.WIN32 the only supported assembly compiler). > Similar is true (but not used by me) for the do_win64i.bat batch file. > This is probably somewhat inconsistent… Since I did not have nasm > installed, the build for 32-bit succeeded, but for 64-bit (AMD) not. Strange. In order to fail both nasm and ml64 should be absent... While Microsoft failed to include assembler with initial Visual x64-capable release, as far as I understand it was present on later releases (and was available as separate download for initial release). Don't you have ml64? > Is it possible to make some more generic batch files? I'll give it a thought... ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
