[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openssl-users
Subject:    Re: BN functions and Solaris 7 'bc' disagree
From:       "Michal Trojnara" <Michal.Trojnara () centertel ! pl>
Date:       2000-04-29 17:43:29
[Download RAW message or body]

Odpowiedz automatyczna:

Do 5 maja przebywam na zasluzonym urlopie.
W pilnych sprawach prosze o kontakt z Kamilem Kilinskim.

Z powazaniem,
    Michal Trojnara

>>> "openssl-users@openssl.org" 04/29/00 19:36 >>>

Ted Powell <@tgivan.com>:

> When I ran openssl-0.9.5a's "make test", the tmp.bntest file that was
> written contained (out of 1800+ tests) seven expressions which Solaris 7's
> 'bc' evaluated to give non-zero results.
[...]
> When I feed the problematic tmp.bntest to GNU bc (version 1.05a, on Red Hat
> Linux 6.2) all the expressions evaluate to zero, as they should.

> My concern is this: Do the BN library and GNU 'bc' agree with each other
> because they are both right (and the Solaris 'bc' has a bug), or do the BN
> library and GNU 'bc' agree with each other because they each have the same
> bug (and the Solaris 'bc' is giving correct answers)?

GNU bc does not use the BN library, so it would be strange if they had
the same bugs; so this looks like problem of Solaris bc.  Why don't
you post the offending lines so that the computations can be verified
with yet other software?
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List                    openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager                           majordomo@openssl.org

______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List                    openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager                           majordomo@openssl.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]