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.