#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
+#include <openssl/e_os2.h>
#include <openssl/md5.h>
#ifndef MD5_LONG_LOG2
#endif
#ifdef MD5_ASM
-# if defined(__i386) || defined(WIN32)
-# define md5_block_host_order md5_block_asm_host_order
-# elif defined(__sparc) && defined(ULTRASPARC)
- void md5_block_asm_data_order_aligned (MD5_CTX *c, const MD5_LONG *p,int num);
-# define HASH_BLOCK_DATA_ORDER_ALIGNED md5_block_asm_data_order_aligned
+# if defined(__i386) || defined(__i386__) || defined(_M_IX86) || defined(__INTEL__) || \
+ defined(__x86_64) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(_M_AMD64) || defined(_M_X64)
+# define md5_block_data_order md5_block_asm_data_order
+# elif defined(__ia64) || defined(__ia64__) || defined(_M_IA64)
+# define md5_block_data_order md5_block_asm_data_order
+# elif defined(__sparc) || defined(__sparc__)
+# define md5_block_data_order md5_block_asm_data_order
# endif
#endif
-void md5_block_host_order (MD5_CTX *c, const void *p,int num);
-void md5_block_data_order (MD5_CTX *c, const void *p,int num);
-
-#if defined(__i386)
-/*
- * *_block_host_order is expected to handle aligned data while
- * *_block_data_order - unaligned. As algorithm and host (x86)
- * are in this case of the same "endianess" these two are
- * otherwise indistinguishable. But normally you don't want to
- * call the same function because unaligned access in places
- * where alignment is expected is usually a "Bad Thing". Indeed,
- * on RISCs you get punished with BUS ERROR signal or *severe*
- * performance degradation. Intel CPUs are in turn perfectly
- * capable of loading unaligned data without such drastic side
- * effect. Yes, they say it's slower than aligned load, but no
- * exception is generated and therefore performance degradation
- * is *incomparable* with RISCs. What we should weight here is
- * costs of unaligned access against costs of aligning data.
- * According to my measurements allowing unaligned access results
- * in ~9% performance improvement on Pentium II operating at
- * 266MHz. I won't be surprised if the difference will be higher
- * on faster systems:-)
- *
- * <appro@fy.chalmers.se>
- */
-#define md5_block_data_order md5_block_host_order
-#endif
+void md5_block_data_order (MD5_CTX *c, const void *p,size_t num);
#define DATA_ORDER_IS_LITTLE_ENDIAN
#define HASH_LONG MD5_LONG
-#define HASH_LONG_LOG2 MD5_LONG_LOG2
#define HASH_CTX MD5_CTX
#define HASH_CBLOCK MD5_CBLOCK
-#define HASH_LBLOCK MD5_LBLOCK
#define HASH_UPDATE MD5_Update
#define HASH_TRANSFORM MD5_Transform
#define HASH_FINAL MD5_Final
-#define HASH_BLOCK_HOST_ORDER md5_block_host_order
-#if !defined(L_ENDIAN) || defined(md5_block_data_order)
+#define HASH_MAKE_STRING(c,s) do { \
+ unsigned long ll; \
+ ll=(c)->A; (void)HOST_l2c(ll,(s)); \
+ ll=(c)->B; (void)HOST_l2c(ll,(s)); \
+ ll=(c)->C; (void)HOST_l2c(ll,(s)); \
+ ll=(c)->D; (void)HOST_l2c(ll,(s)); \
+ } while (0)
#define HASH_BLOCK_DATA_ORDER md5_block_data_order
-/*
- * Little-endians (Intel and Alpha) feel better without this.
- * It looks like memcpy does better job than generic
- * md5_block_data_order on copying-n-aligning input data.
- * But franlky speaking I didn't expect such result on Alpha.
- * On the other hand I've got this with egcs-1.0.2 and if
- * program is compiled with another (better?) compiler it
- * might turn out other way around.
- *
- * <appro@fy.chalmers.se>
- */
-#endif
-#include "../md32_common.h"
+#include "md32_common.h"
/*
#define F(x,y,z) (((x) & (y)) | ((~(x)) & (z)))
*/
/* As pointed out by Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com>, the above can be
- * simplified to the code below. Wei attributes these optimisations
+ * simplified to the code below. Wei attributes these optimizations
* to Peter Gutmann's SHS code, and he attributes it to Rich Schroeppel.
*/
#define F(b,c,d) ((((c) ^ (d)) & (b)) ^ (d))
projects / openssl.git / blobdiff