[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3489defbc4e7b95ca4b22a2bc96b910@smtp.hushmail.com>
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.
