Since return is inconsistent, I removed unnecessary parentheses and
unified them.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4541)
Names were not removed.
Some comments were updated.
Replace Andy's address with openssl.org
Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4516)
Many options for supporting optimizations for legacy crypto on legacy
platforms have been removed. This simplifies the source code and
does not really penalize anyone.
DES_PTR (always on)
DES_RISC1, DES_RISC2 (always off)
DES_INT (always 'unsigned int')
DES_UNROLL (always on)
BF_PTR (always on) BF_PTR2 (removed)
MD2_CHAR, MD2_LONG (always 'unsigned char')
IDEA_SHORT, IDEA_LONG (always 'unsigned int')
RC2_SHORT, RC2_LONG (always 'unsigned int')
RC4_LONG (only int and char (for assembler) are supported)
RC4_CHUNK (always long), RC_CHUNK_LL (removed)
RC4_INDEX (always on)
And also make D_ENCRYPT macro more clear (@appro)
This is done in consultation with Andy.
Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
This was done by the following
find . -name '*.[ch]' | /tmp/pl
where /tmp/pl is the following three-line script:
print unless $. == 1 && m@/\* .*\.[ch] \*/@;
close ARGV if eof; # Close file to reset $.
And then some hand-editing of other files.
Reviewed-by: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor@openssl.org>
room for aligning of the key schedule itself [specific alignment is
required for future performance improvements], but OpenSSH "abuses"
our API by making copies and restoring RC4_KEY, thus ruining the
alignment and making it impossible to recover the key schedule.
PR: 1114
apparently impossible to compose blended code with would perform
satisfactory on all x86 and x86_64 cores, an extra RC4_CHAR
code-path is introduced and P4 core is detected at run-time. This
way we keep original performance on non-P4 implementations and
turbo-charge P4 performance by factor of 2.8x (on 32-bit core).
1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b
2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
.2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
