Just issued pull request #160:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/160
Will update the thread with the RT issue number when it comes through.
Mike
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Mike Bland mbl...@acm.org wrote:
Still, it does look like the single-Makefile results are a win.
Yes, I agree. That's what I've done for years on Win32 (MSVC + MingW) with
this single GNU makefile:
http://www.watt-32.net/misc/openssl-windows.zip
Actually 2 files; Options.Windows and
On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
Just a comment. the OpenSSL build already depends on Perl and Perl already
has a Make of it's own .
Ooh, that could be interesting. What's the perl make thing called? A web
search for perl make was too voluminous…
AFAIK,
If I may redirect the discussion here, interesting as it is... I've
got a refactoring of the build system in-hand, compatible with tools
already in use. As much as folks may be in support of adopting a new
build system entirely--which I agree, might be worthwhile--I'd like
feedback on the work
Subject: Re: Single-Makefile Build Experiment report
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Tim Hollebeek tholleb...@trustwave.com wrote:
Have you considered moving to CMake? It makes lots of the issues you discuss
in the document just go away. cmake should work on the vast majority of
supported
can't
join that bandwagon.
-Tim
-Original Message-
From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Bland
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:35 PM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: Single-Makefile Build Experiment report
On Thu
On 08/15, Mike Bland wrote:
If I may redirect the discussion here, interesting as it is... I've
got a refactoring of the build system in-hand, compatible with tools
already in use. As much as folks may be in support of adopting a new
build system entirely--which I agree, might be
Nathan Typanski wrote:
On 08/14, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
Have you considered moving to CMake? It makes lots of the issues
you discuss in the document just go away. cmake should work on the
vast majority of supported operating systems, if not all of them ...
Cmake has disadvantages. I
would probably be willing to help.
From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Bland
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:59 AM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: RE: Single-Makefile Build Experiment report
I appreciate and may take you up
Nathan and Tim,
Thanks much for helping refocus here. Responses inline.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Nathan Typanski ntypan...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike,
Sorry for contributing to the off-topic discussion. I'll try to make
up for it by posting some interesting data.
No worries; I've
On 08/15, Mike Bland wrote:
Thanks much for doing this! But I'm really surprised that you're
getting 16s full, nonparallel builds from the existing recursive make
structure, when my Mac Pro still clocks 65s. What am I missing here?
Oh. Crap.
$ git clone
I forgot the only important timing command in the above sequence: the
actual build step. But, yes, I use ccache and it does ridiculous
things to build times. What looks like `gcc` from my end is just
copying cached builds out of RAM.
Nathan
Ah, ccache...all those years at the old company rotted so much of my memory. :-P
Still, it does look like the single-Makefile results are a win.
Mike
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Nathan Typanski ntypan...@gmail.com wrote:
I forgot the only important timing command in the above sequence:
Have you considered moving to CMake? It makes lots of the issues you discuss
in the document just go away. cmake should work on the vast majority of
supported operating systems, if not all of them ...
-Original Message-
From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Tim Hollebeek tholleb...@trustwave.com wrote:
Have you considered moving to CMake? It makes lots of the issues you discuss
in the document just go away. cmake should work on the vast majority of
supported operating systems, if not all of them ...
Nope;
On 08/14, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
Have you considered moving to CMake? It makes lots of the issues
you discuss in the document just go away. cmake should work on the
vast majority of supported operating systems, if not all of them ...
Cmake has disadvantages. I haven't actually used it enough
of make is an
improvement or not, but at least it would remove one dependency and provide
the same features across platforms.
Peter
From: Nathan Typanski ntypan...@gmail.com
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Date: 15/08/2014 09:40 AM
Subject:Re: Single-Makefile Build Experiment
Just a comment. the OpenSSL build already depends on Perl and Perl already
has a Make of it's own .
Ooh, that could be interesting. What's the perl make thing called? A web
search for perl make was too voluminous...
/r$
--
Principal Security Engineer
Akamai Technologies,
On 08/14, Salz, Rich wrote:
Just a comment. the OpenSSL build already depends on Perl and Perl already
has a Make of it's own .
Ooh, that could be interesting. What's the perl make thing called?
A web search for perl make was too voluminous...
Hm ... maybe some of my Google-fu can come
19 matches
Mail list logo
