On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:03:56AM +0000, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote: > Hi, > > Well, OpenSSL doesn't target exclusively post-ABI-update systems and the > rationale for unconditional removal is questionable. I mean you say > yourself "since update" and "our performance", but what about "prior > update" and other OSes? Do *all*, i.e. even big-endian, Linux systems > implement new ABI? AIX? MacOS X/PPC? Yes, I agree. We can only speak to Linux ABI V1/V2.
> Well, one can say the last one is > dead, and even if it's not, modules in question [POWER8-specific] won't > ever execute under it, but one before is not... IBM also pushes for > POWER8 to be more open, so wouldn't it be more appropriate to keep > options open? And why just POWER8-specific modules? I finally managed to > find a copy of new specification and it classifies vrsave as reserved > for system use. So that correct course of action is to make instructions > reading/writing vrsave conditional, formulate the condition, and express > it in code. I'd suggest to implement this in ppc-xlate. I.e. recognize > 'mtspr 256,rA' and conditionally replace it with some kind of nop, e.g. > or rA,rA,rA. 'mfspr rD,256' can be replaced with li rD,-1. This way one > can affect all modules at once without having to examine each one of > them. I can make suggestion a little bit later... > I totally agree with your suggestions. I'll redo my patch according to them. Thanks a lot! _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
