Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:59:22 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: sha2 in unstable vs bleeding On 12 Feb, 2013, at 18:30 , "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> wrote: > The sha2.h in unstable has been reduced in complexity, and should be the one > used. Also, the sha2.c in unstable is the most current. The version is > bleeding was one of the earlier versions, before I lined up the macros, > between the 32 bit and 64 bit versions. > > So in other words, copy unstable's sha2.h and sha2.c to bleeding. > > Jim. > > From: magnum Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:03 >> Jim, >> >> sha2.c and sha2.h are slightly different in unstable vs bleeding. Why? > Which version is better? >> >> The unstable version seem to be a couple days newer and the header has > #else clauses that we probably want and that bleeding lacks. Okay, fixed now. BTW I got strict-aliasing warnings from gcc 4.7.2 on ppc for the BE versions of OUTBE32() and OUTBE64() despite you are already using a proper union. I can't see why. I'll try using m.wlen as input to the macro and cast it the other way round, but it really should not be needed. magnum
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.