> This is one reason why keeping around old assembly code can have a cost. :( > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5320
There is nothing I can add to what I've already said. To quote myself. "None of what I say means that everything *has to* be kept, but as already said, some of them serve meaningful purpose..." Well, I also said that "I'm *not* saying that bit-rot is not a concern, only that it's not really assembly-specific." And I can probably add something here, in addition to already mentioned example of legacy code relying on formally undefined or implementation-specific behaviour. It's not actually that uncommon that *new* C code is committed[!!!] "bit-rotten". So one can *just as well* say that supporting another operating system has a cost, and so does using another compiler... Why not get "angry" about that? What's the difference really? Relevant question is what's more expensive, supporting multiple compilers? multiple OSes? multiple assembly? To give a "tangible" example in the context of forwarded message [that mentions PA-RISC assembly code.] How long time did it take me to figure out what's wrong and verify that problem is resolved? Couple of hours (mostly because old systems are sloooow and it takes time to compile our stuff). How long time did it take me to resolve HP-UX problems triggered by report on 20th of March? I'm presumably[!] done by about now... To summarize, one can make same argument about multiple things, yet we do them. Why? Because it works to our advantage [directly or indirectly]... _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project