On 2 Apr., 00:07, "Wei Dai" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think your patch would impose a cost of extra function call for every use
> of NULL_CHANNEL, which occurs pretty often. It would be better to put the
> global object that uses the RNG into a function instead (which sounds like
> what you would do anyway in your application code).
>
In my eyes the extra cost of the extra function call is negligible in
the context
of the far more complicated cryptographic calculations.
In searching this list I found at least one other post (sry cannot
find it atm) from a user which might had the
same problem with the uninitialized NULL_CHANNEL. I find it more
important to have
a library that is just "safe" to use ... even if you write not
reccommended code
yourself. (in this case: Effective C++: Item 4)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users"
Google Group.
To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected].
More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at
http://www.cryptopp.com.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
