[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:30:48 -0600
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: sha2 in unstable vs bleeding
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.
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.
