CMake 3.10 was released November 20, 2017, which is now more than five
years ago.
Change-Id: Ic939fd137983914ce1041740f58d98a56433e739
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/55271
Commit-Queue: Bob Beck <bbe@google.com>
Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Bob Beck <bbe@google.com>
CMake 3.8 was released April 10, 2017, which puts it past our five
year horizon. (CMake 3.9 is just a few days short of it, so using 3.8
for now.) In particular, depending on 3.7+ gets us some nice features
like VERSION_GREATER_EQUAL.
Change-Id: I90457ad41e7add3c6b2dd3664da964c4b6ede499
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/53345
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
MSVC is a little behind, but otherwise we should be able to assume C11
support in all our compilers. The only C99 builds should just be stale
build files. Such consumers are leaving performance on the table, by
using the worse refcounting implementation.
For now, don't require it in public headers. Android's build is still
defaulting to C99, which means requiring C11 will be disruptive. We can
try the public headers after that's fixed.
Update-Note: If the build fails with an error about C11, remove -std=c99
or -std=gnu99 from your build. Refcounting will get faster.
Change-Id: I2ec6f7d7acc026a451851d0c38f60c14bae6b00f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/52247
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Now that we've dropped MSVC 2015, I believe we can rely on C++14 (which
is now seven years old). This switches the build to require C++14. I've
gone ahead and switched code in both public headers and within the
library, but if the public headers are a problem, we can revert those
separately.
C++14 doesn't get us quite as much as C++17, but see if we can get to
C++14 first. Still, std::enable_if_t and the less restricted constexpr
are nice wins.
Update-Note: C++14 is now required to build BoringSSL. If the build
breaks, make sure your compiler is C++14-capable and is not passing
-std=c++11. If this is causing problems for your project, let us know.
Change-Id: If03a88e3f8a11980180781f95b806e7f3c3cb6c3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/52246
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
VS 2017 was released in March 2017, five years ago now. This means VS
2015 is now past our support window.
This will make the unmarked and "vs2017" configs in CI/CQ do the same
thing. I'll follow up with a separate CL in infra/config to switch the
test VS 2019 instead.
Update-Note: BoringSSL may no longer build with VS 2015. Consumers
should upgrade to the latest Visual Studio release. VS 2017 or later is
required.
Change-Id: I477759deb95a27efe132de76d9ed103826110df0
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/52085
Reviewed-by: Bob Beck <bbe@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The latest version of ACLE splits __ARM_FEATURE_CRYPTO into two defines
to reflect that, starting ARMv8.2, the cryptography extension can
include {AES,PMULL} and {SHA1,SHA256} separately.
Also standardize on __ARM_NEON, which is the recommended symbol from
ACLE, and the only one defined on non-Apple aarch64 targets. Digging
through GCC history, __ARM_NEON__ is a bit older. __ARM_NEON was added
in GCC's 9e94a7fc5ab770928b9e6a2b74e292d35b4c94da from 2012, part of GCC
4.8.0.
I suspect we can stop paying attention to __ARM_NEON__ at this point,
but I've left both working for now. __ARM_FEATURE_{AES,SHA2} is definite
too new to fully replace __ARM_FEATURE_CRYPTO.
Tested on Linux that -march=armv8-a+aes now also drops the fallback AES
code. Previously, we would pick up -march=armv8-a+crypto, but not
-march=armv8-a+aes. Also tested that, on an OPENSSL_STATIC_ARMCAP build,
-march=armv8-a+sha2 sets the SHA-1 and SHA-256 features.
Change-Id: I749bdbc501ba2da23177ddb823547efcd77e5c98
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/50847
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This imports the changes to sha512-armv8.pl from
upstream's af0fcf7b4668218b24d9250b95e0b96939ccb4d1.
Tweaks needed:
- Add an explicit .text because we put .LK$BITS in .rodata for XOM
- .LK$bits and code are in separate sections, so use adrp/add instead of
plain adr
- Where glibc needs feature flags to *enable* pthread_rwlock, Apple
interprets _XOPEN_SOURCE as a request to *disable* Apple extensions.
Tighten the condition on the _XOPEN_SOURCE check.
Added support for macOS and Linux, tested manually on an ARM Mac and a
VM, respectively. Fuchsia and Windows do not currently have APIs to
expose this bit, so I've left in TODOs. Benchmarks from an Apple M1 Max:
Before:
Did 4647000 SHA-512 (16 bytes) operations in 1000103us (74.3 MB/sec)
Did 1614000 SHA-512 (256 bytes) operations in 1000379us (413.0 MB/sec)
Did 439000 SHA-512 (1350 bytes) operations in 1001694us (591.6 MB/sec)
Did 76000 SHA-512 (8192 bytes) operations in 1011821us (615.3 MB/sec)
Did 39000 SHA-512 (16384 bytes) operations in 1024311us (623.8 MB/sec)
After:
Did 10369000 SHA-512 (16 bytes) operations in 1000088us (165.9 MB/sec) [+123.1%]
Did 3650000 SHA-512 (256 bytes) operations in 1000079us (934.3 MB/sec) [+126.2%]
Did 1029000 SHA-512 (1350 bytes) operations in 1000521us (1388.4 MB/sec) [+134.7%]
Did 175000 SHA-512 (8192 bytes) operations in 1001874us (1430.9 MB/sec) [+132.5%]
Did 89000 SHA-512 (16384 bytes) operations in 1010314us (1443.3 MB/sec) [+131.4%]
(This doesn't seem to change the overall SHA-256 vs SHA-512 performance
question on ARM, when hashing perf matters. SHA-256 on the same chip
gets up to 2454.6 MB/s.)
In terms of build coverage, for now, we'll have build coverage
everywhere and test coverage on Chromium, which runs this code on macOS
CI. We should request a macOS ARM64 bot for our standalone CI. Longer
term, we need a QEMU-based builder to test various features. QEMU seems
to have pretty good coverage of all this, which will at least give us
Linux.
I haven't added an OPENSSL_STATIC_ARMCAP_SHA512 for now. Instead, we
just look at the standard __ARM_FEATURE_SHA512 define. Strangely, the
corresponding -march tag is not sha512. Neither GCC and nor Clang have
-march=armv8-a+sha512. Instead, -march=armv8-a+sha3 implies both
__ARM_FEATURE_SHA3 and __ARM_FEATURE_SHA512! Yet everything else seems
to describe the SHA512 extension as separate from SHA3.
https://developer.arm.com/architectures/system-architectures/software-standards/acle
Update-Note: Consumers with a different build setup may need to
limit -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 to Linux or non-Apple platforms. Otherwise,
<sys/types.h> won't define some typedef needed by <sys/sysctl.h>. If you
see a build error about u_char, etc., being undefined in some system
header, that is probably the cause.
Change-Id: Ia213d3796b84c71b7966bb68e0aec92e5d7d26f0
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/50807
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
GCC 6.1 was released more than five years ago, April 27, 2016. We can
thus drop some bits in the CMake files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.htmlhttps://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
Also note in BUILDING.md that VS2015 will no longer be supported next
year. Then we can cycle our CQ to testing VS2017 + VS2019. (We're
currently not testing VS2019 at all, though so far it hasn't been an
issue.) I've been running into some VS2015-only C++ issues around
conversions, so once we stop testing it, I expect it'll break.
Change-Id: I7a3020df2acd61d57409108aa4d99c840b5ca994
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/48925
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
As of
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/tools/build/+/2586225,
we no longer test on Yasm. Yasm hasn't seen a release for over six years
now and is missing support for newer x86 instructions.
This removes the remnants of support for Yasm on the CI. It also removes
the Yasm support we patched into x86nasm.pl, which removes a now
unnecessary divergence from upstream.
Update-Note: If a x86 Windows asm build breaks, switch from Yasm to
NASM. We're also no longer testing NASM on x86_64 Windows, but there
wasn't any patch to revert.
Change-Id: I016bad8757fcc13240db9f56dd622be518e649d7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/44564
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
David Benjamin
Adam Langley