Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options
From: Darren Dunham (ddunham_at_redwood.taos.com)
Date: 10/07/03
- Next message: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Previous message: Dimitri Maziuk: "OpenSSH: SIGCHLD on Solaris 8"
- In reply to: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Next in thread: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Reply: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:17:58 GMT
Dimitri Maziuk <dima@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> You will need a 64 bit library if you want openssh (or other
>> applications) to be 64 bit. However there isn't any particular
>> benefit to making these 64 bit. I just build 32 bit for openssl and
>> openssh.
> IME 64-bit binaries are a little faster (compiled with Sun's cc,
> don't know about gcc).
Is this from benchmarks? Unless it does 64bit math, I can't think of
any reason it would be faster, and I can think of reasons it would be
slower.
--
Darren Dunham ddunham@taos.com
Unix System Administrator Taos - The SysAdmin Company
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
- Next message: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Previous message: Dimitri Maziuk: "OpenSSH: SIGCHLD on Solaris 8"
- In reply to: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Next in thread: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Reply: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|