Yes, my name and e-mail address look correct. I assume that since it doesn't affect the coreutils, you won't be releasing an updated version just for that? It is okay with me because I have already checked my fix into the CVS for my project. But I would like to update to the official release when it comes out.
Thanks -Scott On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> The bug strikes whenever ctx->buflen|64 != 0. > > > > Btw, ctx->buflen|64 != 0 is always true because it is the same as > > ctx->buflen|(64 != 0). > > Shameful ;-) I meant "ctx->buflen&64", of course. > > > >> - sha256_process_block (ctx->buffer, ctx->buflen & ~63, ctx); > >> - > >> ctx->buflen &= 63; > >> + sha256_process_block (ctx->buffer, ctx->buflen, ctx); > > > > I hope you are aware of that a & 63 is different from a & ~63? > > Of course. My mistake was in not *seeing* that "63 != ~63" > > Thanks. So I won't be making that latter change. > _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
