> Please do not use previously mentioned routine, it missed 1 corner
> case where 32=num_bits_word(d)
> Revised routine that passes (cd test; make bntest).

Does it mean that previous version didn't actually pass the test? I mean
if it did on your CPU, but not mine, probably we could learn something
else about ways PPC can be implemented...

> All I had to do is add one more instruction to the routine.
> Please test on your ppc32 machines.
> Once we are all happy,

Is this your agenda? Make everybody happy:-):-):-) Good luck:-):-):-)

> it's a matter of adding the core dump at the beginning.
> Thus you have a fast,

32*(div latency + mul latency) is fast? If I call BN_bn2dec in loop it
spins 4 times slower than with current implementation. Well, at least on
computer I have access to...

> easy to understand, predictable bn_div_words, as
> opposed to that monster in 0.9.8.

Hostility again? Are you saying that nobody understands current
implementation and that it produces unpredictable results? I disagree:-)

> Other architectures will benefit if this C function is used in bn_asm.c

How? And which architectures exactly? Virtually all 32-bit
architectures, including PPC32, opt for
(BN_ULONG)(((((BN_ULLONG)h)< __________________________________________________ ____________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majordomo@openssl.org