Re: 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux