Re[2]: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?
AP As support for platforms narrower than 32-bit is discontinued... Do I face the prospect of not being able to update at all (past some 0.9.9)?! As the more code in the OpenSSL gets updated - the more I'll disable in ./configure? Quite sad... AP How wide-spread the target platform? It is QNX4. Not as usual as windoze, but still very popular for robotics... AP Is SHA512 really required in the context and/or does it really AP worth it? To ensure the interoperability with modern clients on other platforms (SSH.com, OpenSSH) - yes. AP These are kind of question behind reasoning behind not AP really. :( -- Best regards, Anthony mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?
Hello Andy, Friday, July 15, 2005, 9:32:10 PM, you wrote: AP Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other AP words 16-bit one[s]. Is your platform 16-bit? I find it hard to believe:-) Oh! Yes, now I see the point - *NARROWER*! QNX4 is 32bit OS. The only problem is in the tool-chain (Watcom C v10.6B does not support int64)... AP As far as I understand there is gcc for QNX, so why not use it as more AP feature-rich compiler? I'm afraid it becomes an off-topic here... gcc v2.8 or something, roumors are it is quite buggy... And stale... :( AP Meanwhile ask your vendor to implement long long support :-) :) Indeed! :)) :( OK. Thank you! -- Best regards, Anthonymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
