| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 19-04-2007 00:27:36 +1000, Matt Michalowski wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Ah yes, one more: |
| 7 |
>>> dev-libs/openssl-0.9.8e does not build on x86-linux, but 0.9.8d does. |
| 8 |
>>> So please remove that keyword by now, thanks! |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> It builds for me on x86-linux, with CFLAGS simply set to "-O2 -march=i686". |
| 12 |
>> It breaks, as you pointed out the other week, with -g. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So I better unmask and strip the -g flag? Feels awkward, I prefer to |
| 16 |
> keep it in p.mask for now. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Yeah, I agree it would be awkward. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I've done some further investigating, and I was wrong about it being |
| 22 |
"-g", it's having no optimizations turned on: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
(-O0) |
| 25 |
# dhcp213:.../work/openssl-0.9.8e/crypto/engine# i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc |
| 26 |
-I.. -I../.. -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB_SHARED -DZLIB |
| 27 |
-DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DL_ENDIAN |
| 28 |
-DTERMIO -Wall -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_PART_WORDS -DSHA1_ASM -DMD5_ASM |
| 29 |
-DRMD160_ASM -DAES_ASM -Wa,--noexecstack -c -o eng_padlock.o |
| 30 |
eng_padlock.c -march=i686 -O0 |
| 31 |
eng_padlock.c: In function 'padlock_xcrypt_ecb': |
| 32 |
eng_padlock.c:445: error: can't find a register in class 'GENERAL_REGS' |
| 33 |
while reloading 'asm' |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
where as: (-O1 -g) |
| 36 |
# dhcp213:.../work/openssl-0.9.8e/crypto/engine# i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc |
| 37 |
-I.. -I../.. -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB_SHARED -DZLIB |
| 38 |
-DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DL_ENDIAN |
| 39 |
-DTERMIO -Wall -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_PART_WORDS -DSHA1_ASM -DMD5_ASM |
| 40 |
-DRMD160_ASM -DAES_ASM -Wa,--noexecstack -c -o eng_padlock.o |
| 41 |
eng_padlock.c -O1 -g |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
compiles fine. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Now for my $0.02. eng_padlock is for VIA Padlock hardware support (hence |
| 46 |
its ASM implementation), which I don't imagine is many x86 users let |
| 47 |
alone prefix portage x86 users (I could be wrong :) ). It's pretty easy |
| 48 |
to disable the VIA support, and OpenSSL will still function without it. |
| 49 |
I've attached a patch. Maybe haubi will have some better ideas. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Matt. |
Archives