[openssl-users] Assembler Optimizations in 'crypto' on Windows

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[openssl-users] Assembler Optimizations in 'crypto' on Windows

Deepak-2

Dear OpenSSL User,

I am working on porting 0.9.8h based 'OpenSSL customization' to 1.0.1.

Earlier this code was using 'cpp' as input parameter to the Perl scripts.

1. What option shall I use now for Windows?

As per documentation, nasm will be the only supported assembler. But currently both masm (option win32) and nasm (option win32n) work.

2. Why nasm is prefered over masm? Maybe ml.exe is better since it comes from ms.

Thank you.


_______________________________________________
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [openssl-users] Assembler Optimizations in 'crypto' on Windows

Steven Kneizys
Just my opinion ... but ...

While nasm is the only supported assembler, I have been able to get masm to work but I often have to tweak the perl code a bit.  Every few months I have been testing and reporting my findings to the openssl-dev group about my results.  When possible folks seem to be able to incorporate changes that help make things better on a variety of isssues folks submit patches for.  And, one recent 64 bit build required no tweaks using ml64.exe so it is possible to use it sometimes.  However, there are some other really high priorities with getting the openssl product as safe and reliable as possible.  The support cannot be for all available tools and nasm is the best choice. 

Nasm allows a number of platforms that masm does not, it is open source so any issues can be addressed quickly.   For just windows I would like masm to work, but I have used both and haven't been disappointed.  The main problem I have is with auditors, sometimes they ask about where an executable like openssl comes from, was it obtained from the web as a binary or built, and if built was it built via tools downloaded (and possibly binary) or from the vendor (such as HP, IBM, MS, etc.)  The only reason I can see at this point to try use masm is if you have a mandate to use it and don't mind some possible hours of frustration as you work through any issues, but my advice is to download nasm and give it a try.  It is free and for me quite reliable.

-- 
Steve Kneizys
Senior Business Process Engineer @ Ferrilli
web: http://www.ferrilli.com/

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Deepak <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear OpenSSL User,

I am working on porting 0.9.8h based 'OpenSSL customization' to 1.0.1.

Earlier this code was using 'cpp' as input parameter to the Perl scripts.

1. What option shall I use now for Windows?

As per documentation, nasm will be the only supported assembler. But currently both masm (option win32) and nasm (option win32n) work.

2. Why nasm is prefered over masm? Maybe ml.exe is better since it comes from ms.

Thank you.


_______________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [openssl-users] Assembler Optimizations in 'crypto' on Windows

Deepak-2


On Jan 14, 2015 10:14 PM, "Steven Kneizys" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just my opinion ... but ...
>
> While nasm is the only supported assembler, I have been able to get masm to work but I often have to tweak the perl code a bit.  Every few months I have been testing and reporting my findings to the openssl-dev group about my results.  When possible folks seem to be able to incorporate changes that help make things better on a variety of isssues folks submit patches for.  And, one recent 64 bit build required no tweaks using ml64.exe so it is possible to use it sometimes.  However, there are some other really high priorities with getting the openssl product as safe and reliable as possible.  The support cannot be for all available tools and nasm is the best choice. 
>
> Nasm allows a number of platforms that masm does not, it is open source so any issues can be addressed quickly.   For just windows I would like masm to work, but I have used both and haven't been disappointed.  The main problem I have is with auditors, sometimes they ask about where an executable like openssl comes from, was it obtained from the web as a binary or built, and if built was it built via tools downloaded (and possibly binary) or from the vendor (such as HP, IBM, MS, etc.)  The only reason I can see at this point to try use masm is if you have a mandate to use it and don't mind some possible hours of frustration as you work through any issues, but my advice is to download nasm and give it a try.  It is free and for me quite reliable.
>
> -- 
> Steve Kneizys
> Senior Business Process Engineer @ Ferrilli
> web: http://www.ferrilli.com/
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Deepak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear OpenSSL User,
>>
>> I am working on porting 0.9.8h based 'OpenSSL customization' to 1.0.1.
>>
>> Earlier this code was using 'cpp' as input parameter to the Perl scripts.
>>
>> 1. What option shall I use now for Windows?
>>
>> As per documentation, nasm will be the only supported assembler. But currently both masm (option win32) and nasm (option win32n) work.
>>
>> 2. Why nasm is prefered over masm? Maybe ml.exe is better since it comes from ms.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

Thank you for sharing the inputs.

Regards


_______________________________________________
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users