Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:13:03 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: sha2 in unstable vs bleeding OK, no problem I'll revert and re-do it the other way :) magnum On 12 Feb, 2013, at 20:10 , "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> wrote: > 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.