Re: x86 SHA1: Faster than OpenSSL

> > Three classes of people compile git from the source:
> >
> > * People who want to be on the bleeding edge and compile git for
> >   themselves, even though they are on mainstream platforms where they
> >   could choose distro-packaged one;
> >
> > * People who produce binary packages for distribution.
> >
> > * People who are on minority platforms and have no other way to get git
> >   than compiling for themselves;
> >
> > We do not have to worry about the first two groups of people.  It won't
> > be too involved for them to install Perl on their system; after all they
> > are already coping with asciidoc and xmlto ;-)
> 
> Actually, I'd get rid of the perl entirely, but I'm not sure how
> necessary the other-assembler-syntax features are needed by the
> folks on MacOS X and Windows (msysgit).

> > In the Makefile, we say:
> >
> >    # Define NO_OPENSSL environment variable if you do not have OpenSSL.
> >    # This also implies MOZILLA_SHA1.
> >
> > and with your change, we would start implying STANDALONE_OPENSSL_SHA1
> > instead.  But if MOZILLA_SHA1 was given explicitly, we could use that.
> 
> Well, I'd really like to auto-detect the processor.  Current gcc's
> "gcc -v" output includes a "Target: " line that will do nicely.  I can,
> of course, fall back to C if it fails, but is there a significant user
> base using a non-GCC compiler?