Apart from public and internal header files, there is a third type called
local header files, which are located next to source files in the source
directory. Currently, they have different suffixes like
'*_lcl.h', '*_local.h', or '*_int.h'
This commit changes the different suffixes to '*_local.h' uniformly.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9681)
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>
Remove support for SHA0 and DSS0 (they were broken), and remove
the ability to attempt to build without SHA (it didn't work).
For simplicity, remove the option of not building various SHA algorithms;
you could argue that SHA_224/256/384/512 should be kept, since they're
like crypto algorithms, but I decided to go the other way.
So these options are gone:
GENUINE_DSA OPENSSL_NO_SHA0
OPENSSL_NO_SHA OPENSSL_NO_SHA1
OPENSSL_NO_SHA224 OPENSSL_NO_SHA256
OPENSSL_NO_SHA384 OPENSSL_NO_SHA512
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
sure they are available in opensslconf.h, by giving them names starting
with "OPENSSL_" to avoid conflicts with other packages and by making
sure e_os2.h will cover all platform-specific cases together with
opensslconf.h.
I've checked fairly well that nothing breaks with this (apart from
external software that will adapt if they have used something like
NO_KRB5), but I can't guarantee it completely, so a review of this
change would be a good thing.
"Clean-up" stands for the fact that it's using common message digest
template ../md32_common.h and sha[1_]dgst.c are reduced down to
'#define SHA_[01]' and then '#include "sha_locl.h"'. It stands "(LP64)"
there because it's 64 bit platforms which benefit most from the tune-up.
The updated code exhibits 40% performance improvement on IRIX64
(sounds too good, huh? I probably should double check if it's not
some cache trashing that was holding it back before), 28% - on
Alpha Linux and 12% - Solaris 7/64.
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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
