https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5423 On 2/20/18, 2:10 PM, "Salz, Rich via openssl-users" <openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I agree, let's just use malloc for the reasons you said. PR later today. On 2/20/18, 2:08 PM, "Viktor Dukhovni" <openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Norm Green <norm.green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Your patch tests clean, however there is an easier way which avoids malloc: Great, so it was the unaligned "buf". Great. As for malloc vs. tricks to align the stack-based array, I see little need to avoid malloc() this is a test function, not a performance-critical library function. Exercising OPENSSL_malloc() is arguably a feature. :-) That said, I have no religion on which approach is taken to align "buf". I prefer "malloc" because it unasks the question of which type to use in an array or union to ensure the "proper" alignment. Using any of "long" or "long long" is likely good enough, but could prove more fragile as the code evolves. -- Viktor. -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
