As for warning. I personally would argue that we are looking at
platform-specific i.e. implementation-defined behaviour, not undefined.
Once again, this applies to all three tickets. One is effectively
identical to this one, second is about variable shift in CAST. As
mentioned they all are
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Andy Polyakov via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
As for warning. I personally would argue that we are looking at
platform-specific i.e. implementation-defined behaviour, not undefined.
Once again, this applies to all three tickets. One is effectively
identical to
... if you compile with
-fsanitize, you should also add -DPEDANTIC.
http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=021e5043e524b1cb28a929ef902548a987c16e65
As mentioned this applies to tickets #3422-4.
Looks good to me. Self tests were fine with -DPEDANTIC.
Andy - where
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Andy Polyakov via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
As for warning. I personally would argue that we are looking at
platform-specific i.e. implementation-defined behaviour, not undefined.
Once again, this applies to all three tickets. One is effectively
identical to
On 7/6/14 1:44 PM, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
Basically this discussion applies even to tickets #3422 and #3423. This
means that I'm not going to comment on those tickets, but do whatever we
agree on doing here and close them simultaneously.
I think the main question is if this speed
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, David Jacobson dmjacob...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On 7/6/14 1:44 PM, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
...
As for warning. I personally would argue that we are looking at
platform-specific i.e. implementation-defined behaviour, not undefined.
Once again, this applies
d Jacobson dmjacob...@sbcglobal.netFrom: Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com>
Sent by: owner-openssl-...@openssl.orgDate: 07/07/2014 06:27PM
Cc: OpenSSL Developer ML openssl-dev@openssl.orgSubject: Re: [openssl.org #3424] Misaligned pointers for buffers cast to a size_t*
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 a
As for warning. I personally would argue that we are looking at
platform-specific i.e. implementation-defined behaviour, not undefined.
Once again, this applies to all three tickets. One is effectively
identical to this one, second is about variable shift in CAST. As
mentioned they all are
As for warning. I personally would argue that we are looking at
platform-specific i.e. implementation-defined behaviour, not undefined.
Once again, this applies to all three tickets. One is effectively
identical to this one, second is about variable shift in CAST. As
mentioned they all are
Running `make test` with Clang sanitizers results in some issues with
unaligned pointers surrounding some uses of buffers cast to a size_t*.
The sanitizers used were `-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address`.
Those are conscious choices based on the fact that some CPUs, x86_64
included, are
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 10:25:19AM +0200, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
Running `make test` with Clang sanitizers results in some issues with
unaligned pointers surrounding some uses of buffers cast to a size_t*.
The sanitizers used were `-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address`.
Those are
Running `make test` with Clang sanitizers results in some issues with
unaligned pointers surrounding some uses of buffers cast to a size_t*.
The sanitizers used were `-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address`.
Those are conscious choices based on the fact that some CPUs, x86_64
included, are
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 05:12:42PM +0200, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
Running `make test` with Clang sanitizers results in some issues with
unaligned pointers surrounding some uses of buffers cast to a size_t*.
The sanitizers used were `-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address`.
Those are
... So that above results
don't tell anything about benefits of STRICT_ALIGNMENT being undefined.
And it's usually around 10%. And indeed, I just measured 12.5% on my
computer. [You have to configure with no-asm, and rig apps/speed.c to
use misaligned buffers].
If I then turn on strict
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 06:57:57PM +0200, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
... So that above results
don't tell anything about benefits of STRICT_ALIGNMENT being undefined.
And it's usually around 10%. And indeed, I just measured 12.5% on my
computer. [You have to configure with no-asm, and rig
Basically this discussion applies even to tickets #3422 and #3423. This
means that I'm not going to comment on those tickets, but do whatever we
agree on doing here and close them simultaneously.
I think the main question is if this speed difference is a good
excuse to use undefined behavior or
16 matches
Mail list logo
