[openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

[Andy Polyakov]

> Interesting comment :
> 
> 
> #### Solaris x86 with Sun C setups
>     # There used to be solaris-x86-cc target, but it was removed,
>     # primarily because vendor assembler can't assemble our modules
>     # with -KPIC flag. As result it, assembly support, was not even
>     # available as option. But its lack means lack of side-channel
>     # resistant code, which is incompatible with security by todays
>     # standards. Fortunately gcc is readily available prepackaged
>     # option, which we can firmly point at...
>     #
>     # On related note, solaris64-x86_64-cc target won't compile code
>     # paths utilizing AVX and post-Haswell instruction extensions.
>     # Consider switching to solaris64-x86_64-gcc even here...
>     #
> 
> 
> Pre-packaged? Really ...

Nowadays you just pkgadd it from some common Oracle repository. Well, at
least on x86, as I have no idea if SPARC Solaris offers it. But the
comment is explicitly about x86.

> let's not go down the route of argument today.
> 
> 
>     "solaris64-sparcv9-cc" => {
>         inherit_from     => [ "solaris-sparcv7-cc", asm("sparcv9_asm") ],
>         cflags           => add_before("-xarch=v9"),
>         bn_ops           => "BN_LLONG RC4_CHAR",
>         multilib         => "/64",
>     },
> 
> 
> Actually xarch=v9 is wrong.  Should just say "sparc".

So assertion is that compiler recognizes option -sparc? Don't see
anything of the sort in the manual page. Well, I can see that
contemporary compiler would recognize -xarch=sparc, but that's
*contemporary* version. But more importantly manual also says that
-xarch=v9 is equivalent to -m64 -xarch=sparc and -m64 is the essence of
this configuration. So -xarch=v9 is right, because it generates 64-bit
code and works with all compiler versions. [Well, one can probably argue
that it's time to reconsider meaning of "all compiler versions" in the
context, yet it wouldn't make "just say "sparc"" right :-)]