On 11/1/08, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
> >> Could you please test the other suggested bn_lcl.h modification? While
> >> you're on it...

> >
> > I cannot actually test it... I can compile and users may test.
> > I don't have a win64 machine.

> How is it tested? Implicitly by an application being inter-operable with
> another? Meaning that only only part of algorithms is tested...

I sent them the sha512t test from OpenSSL output.

> I managed to produce them myself with
> mingw-w64-bin_x86-64-linux_20080921.tar.bz2. Modified sha512.c is fine,

My environment is gcc-4.3.2, binutils-CVS-head, mingw-w64-SVN-head as
I found many issues in older releases.

> modified bn_lcl.h gives ~2x improvement. All tests pass except for the
> last Whirlpool test. It's a compiler bug, because if I drop optimization
> level to -O1 when compiling wp_block.c, the test passes.

Can you please send this hank as attachment?

> Strangely enough the code in question is not compiled in VC-* build...
> Basically there is no need for GetModuleHandle("avdapi32") and
> consequent GetProcAddress calls, because the functions in question are
> present on all WinNT *and* Win9x. On latter they do nothing, but they
> are present, so that application won't suffer from startup errors if you
> link them explicitly.

So do we need it or don't we?

__________________________________________________ ____________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majordomo@openssl.org