[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:10:37 -0600
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: sha2 in unstable vs bleeding
Magnum,
I was totally backwards. The newest version was in bleeding, not unstable.
Sorry, my bad. I was reading the diff data wrong, I had the wrong version
on the left.
So what I said was completely backwards. The proper version was in bleeding,
and should be moved to unstable.
I do not think this will change the alias warning, however.
Jim.
From: magnum On 12 Feb, 2013, at 18:30
> 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.
