On 2016-06-02 13:29:35 [+0000], Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
> Thanks!!! There is couple of problems with suggested modifications
> though. First general comment. While 31-bit is arguably not very
> fashionable, bugs are still reported at occasions. Important to keep in
> mind that 31-bit build still requires z/Arch processor *and* highgprs
> kernel feature, i.e. target is not s390 systems (note lack of x), but
> 64-bit processor running 64-bit OS, just running legacy *process*. Goal
> also is to minimize deviations and "parametrize", so that most of the
> code is constantly "exposed" to assembler. That's what are those ${g}
> things are and that's why #if clauses are limited to clearing most
> significant 32 bits of registers. This means that suggestion to
> introduce big #if in CRYPTO_memcmp is not considered favourable.
> Adhering to non-extension instructions is. Another problem is with
> suggested ltgr in chacha-s390x. It has to be "parametrized", i.e. look
> as lt${g}r. Because in 31-bit build there is no guarantee that most
> significant 32-bit of $len register are actually zero-ed. In other words
> could you double-check attached patch instead?Thanks. Just tested and it compiles and the testsuite passes. Sebastian -- Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4548 Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
