committed.
Thanks,
Nils
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello openssl-dev,
Does SHA-512 depend on int64 support in the tool-chain?
If so, are there any plans to make in a bit more portable?
Thank you in advance.
--
Best regards,
Anthony mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, David! Long time, no see:-)
From: David Mosberger
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First of all, note that openssl-dev is subscribers-only list, meaning
that you have to be subscribed to post to it. But no harm is done, as
you've sent a copy to my personal address and
Does SHA-512 depend on int64 support in the tool-chain?
Yes, it's explicitly mentioned in FAQ.
If so, are there any plans to make in a bit more portable?
Not really. As support for platforms narrower than 32-bit is
discontinued, I'd rather recommend to disable algorithm in question
I'm trying to build openssl for the purpose of getting openssh build
for DG-UX 4.20MU07 . I tried to to build 0.97 and 0.98 with the
exact same result and I am getting nowhere. Could anybody point out
what I'm missing ?
The output of make report is in the following:
OpenSSL self-test
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.
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)?!
Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other
words 16-bit one[s]. Is your platform 16-bit? I find it hard to believe:-)
On Friday 15 July 2005 13:32, Andy Polyakov wrote:
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)?!
Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other
words 16-bit
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)?!
Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other
words 16-bit one[s]. Is your platform 16-bit? I find it hard to believe:-)
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Andy Polyakov wrote:
I don't find it hard to believe that there're 16-bit (or even 8-bit) systems
out there. I find it hard to believe that the originator managed to get
OpenSSL 0.9.8 working on a 16-bit system, even without SHA-512 support. A.
Lots of embedded work is
Actually, my point about embedded systems wasn't that they'd necessarily have
the full suite of OpenSSL, but that a pared-down version would be desirable.
If all I want to do is triple DES with anonymous DH for key exchange on an
embedded platform (for example), OpenSSL is probably a good
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
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jim Schneider wrote:
Actually, my point about embedded systems wasn't that they'd necessarily have
the full suite of OpenSSL, but that a pared-down version would be desirable.
If all I want to do is triple DES with anonymous DH for key exchange on an
embedded platform
What's so hard to believe about a 16 bit embedded system (or even an 8 bit
embedded system) that may need some kind of secure network access?
Nothing at all.
What's hard to imagine is that a free development effort must support
all the latest and greatest crypto techniques for such a platform.
15 matches
Mail list logo
