On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Andy Polyakov via RT <r...@openssl.org> wrote: >>>>> As for warning. I personally would argue that we are looking at >>>>> platform-specific i.e. implementation-defined behaviour, not undefined. >>>>> Once again, this applies to all three tickets. One is effectively >>>>> identical to this one, second is about variable shift in CAST. As >>>>> mentioned they all are conscious choices and are proven to work. >>> I think Andy is right with respect to processor behavior. But I'm not >>> certain if its the best strategy given the C langauge rules. >> >> What does it mean in practical terms? Would you a) resort to >> STRICT_ALIGNMENT at all occasions (arguing that performance benefits >> never worth it); b) accept compromise suggestion to adhere to >> STRICT_ALIGNMENT in debug-like build, in this case one with -DPEDANTIC? > > As nobody weighed in, -DPEDANTIC it is. I.e. if you compile with > -fsanitize, you should also add -DPEDANTIC. > > http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=021e5043e524b1cb28a929ef902548a987c16e65 > > As mentioned this applies to tickets #3422-4. Looks good to me. Self tests were fine with -DPEDANTIC.
Andy - where would be an effective place to document it? Jeff ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
