[openssl-users] Fwd: Itanium problem

[Jakob Bohm]

On 17/04/2015 17:25, Rongliang Lei wrote:
> Normal WIN64 works fine so far
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Dr. Stephen Henson 
> <steve at openssl.org <mailto:steve at openssl.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, John Foley wrote:
>
>     > I'm impressed you were able to do a FIPS build for Windows x64.  I
>     > didn't think this was possible.  ;-)
>     >
>
>     WIN64 uses PIC and there aren't any relocation issues so in some
>     ways it's
>     less trouble than WIN32.
>
>     > This looks like the hash that FINGERPRINT_premain() spits out
>     when the
>     > signature hasn't been embedded into the binary.  You may want to
>     confirm
>     > the signature is embedded during the build process.
>     >
>
>     Yes that's the cause. Itanium wasn't a platform that was
>     specifically included
>     during the validation so the build system might not handle it
>     properly and the
>     result most likely wouldn't be validated anyway.
>
>     Do normal WIN64 binaries work?
>
Normal Win64?

You mean Win64 for HP/Digital Alpha AXP, aka Windows 2000 Release Candidate?

Or Win64 for Itanium, aka Windows XP 64 bit edition, Gold and Service 
pack 1?

Or the latest one (possibly not yet released) Win64 for Arm ARCHitecture v8?

You surely cannot mean that amd64 port, introduced in Windows 2003 (NT 
5.02)?

Just joking :-)

Enjoy

Jakob
-- 
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S.  http://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark.  Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/attachments/20150417/87b96ae6/attachment.html>