Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:24:45 -0600 From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: RE: Test results for 179 jumbo-4 >-----Original Message----- >From: Solar Designer [mailto:solar@...nwall.com] >Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 4:10 PM >To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com >Subject: Re: [john-dev] Test results for 179 jumbo-4 > >On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:45:59PM -0600, jfoug wrote: >> >BTW, why aren't you testing -jumbo-5 yet? >> >> I will, but my time is short. > >Oh, I thought that you'd abandon further testing of -4 as soon as -5 >appeared, so this would not take you additional time. It's not that, it is that I reload directories and move some stuff around, each time there is a major release. I simply have not done that yet. >> >Thus, I am puzzled as to why you're getting them defined on SPARC, >> I have put a patch on the wiki. It is based on jumbo-4, but I am 99% >Thanks. This is post-jumbo-5 material now, and I think this issue is >minor enough that it does not warrant a -jumbo-6 yet. It is a very minor fix. It should not impact any 'real' usage of JtR, other than running it against the newest test suite code, which I will not be releasing until Sunday anyway. In 'real' runtime, someone on a BE could run dynamic_29. They could not run dynamic_27, it would give a format not known. I am sure there will be other changes, which we can move forward as a J6. I really have not dug in yet :) I have been more focused on other things. Jim.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.