From: Dan Anderson <dan.ander...@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:37:10 -0800
> I really don't understand the desire to preserve dead, never-used code > in OpenSSL. The SPARC random instruction doesn't exist, OpenSSL never > used it and never can use it, but you don't want to remove the check > for it. It seems silly to me. Ok, how about we replace the random instruction detection with an explicit forced illegal instruction test early in the sparc init code that makes sure the SIGILL facility is working properly? That is, we'll unconditionally and always generate a SIGILL every time openssl is used. I'm perfectly fine with that, but you guys will be in the same position you are now, having to cope with the debugger issue. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
