From: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 15:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Andy Polyakov <ap...@openssl.org> > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:04:47 +0200 > >> I agree that it's not the most optimal, but at the same time no real >> reason to fill bad about it. > > But on the other hand I've done all the work to implement the macros > to do the PIC sequence properly. You really don't have to implement > anything. BTW, two other points need restating: 1) My macros handle the non-PIC case optimally. 2) Your RAS corruption cost considerations are only considering the most immediate effect on the return from the assembler routine in question. Whereas the true RAS miss cost must be multiplied onto the next N functions up in the call chain, where N is the size of the RAS. Since all of those will miss as well. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
