On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:07:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > While the remainder of the code is clean (as far as header usage), it seems > odd to me that <strstream> is the only remaining "odd" header. Is there a > plan to change this in the future?
<sstream> is not available with GCC 2.9x. I'll have to use <strstream> until GCC 2.9x is no longer supported. > Of course, such a construct, i.e. a while loop outside a case statement, > yet inside a switch statement, before any case statement has been reached, > seems quite odd. It makes sense that such code is unreachable. But is > such code legal? Is such code desirable? Is there some effect on another > system system that I'm not aware of? Why is it there? The code is not unreachable. The compiler is just not smart enough to notice. Still, I've moved the code around a bit to remove the warning. It was checked into CVS already before you posted your message, so I don't know why you didn't see it. If you're looking at CVS on the web site, it may be time delayed. > The random number generation in Crypto++ is a nice portion. In fact, I > found the X9.17 implementation nice. Unfortunately, NIST has yanked > support of X9.17 because of ANSI's decertification. Instead, NIST now says > that the random number generation in FIPS 186-2, ANSI X9.31 or ANSI X9.62 > are the only approved algorithms. Crypto++ does offer SHA1 (and DES) as > primitives to build a FIPS compliant RNG. I've read through the FIPS > documentation, and Appendix 3 explains the implementation. ANSI X9.31's RNG is just X9.17's RNG with Triple-DES. So Crypto++ already implements it.
