Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Windows: stop supplying BLK_SHA1=YesPlease by default
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Date: 2018-01-04 18:30:13
On Thu, Jan 04 2018, Johannes Schindelin jotted:
Hi, On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:quoted
Using BLK_SHA1 in lieu of the OpenSSL routines was done in 9bccfcdbff ("Windows: use BLK_SHA1 again", 2009-10-22), since DC_SHA1 is now the default for git in general it makes sense for Windows to use that too, this looks like something that was missed back in e6b07da278 ("Makefile: make DC_SHA1 the default", 2017-03-17). As noted in 2cfc70f0de ("mingw: use OpenSSL's SHA-1 routines", 2017-02-09) OpenSSL has a performance benefit compared to BLK_SHA1 on MinGW, so perhaps that and the Windows default should be changed around again. That's a topic for another series, it seems clear that this specific flag is nobody's explicit intention. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <redacted> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <redacted> --- config.mak.uname | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/config.mak.uname b/config.mak.uname index 685a80d138..6a862abd35 100644 --- a/config.mak.uname +++ b/config.mak.uname@@ -361,7 +361,6 @@ ifeq ($(uname_S),Windows) NO_REGEX = YesPlease NO_GETTEXT = YesPlease NO_PYTHON = YesPlease - BLK_SHA1 = YesPlease ETAGS_TARGET = ETAGS NO_INET_PTON = YesPlease NO_INET_NTOP = YesPleaseThis patch is actually identical to 8756c75cd10 (msvc: use OpenSSL's SHA-1 routines, 2016-10-12) in Git for Windows' master. I did plan to submit this, but it is part of a bigger effort to get Git to build in current versions of Visual Studio again. Before this work, the MSVC build could only use an ancient OpenSSL version from pre-built binaries hosted on repo.or.cz, and those are unlikely to get the performance benefits that you seek. So I would like to ask to skip this patch for now, and take Jeff Hostetler's patch as part of the MSVC patches later, once they have been matured in Git for Windows?
Sounds good to me. Junio, could you please drop this one and just take 1/2?