NIIBE Yutaka <gni...@fsij.org> writes: > Hello, > > Let us apply the patch of Classic McEliece mceliece6688128f.
Thank you. > (Personally, I need to do this before adding more curves to ECC KEM.) > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:20 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> This patch adds Classic McEliece mceliece6688128f based on the public >> domain libmceliece code. What do you think? > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:48 +0100, Werner Koch wrote: >> Seems people want that. > > Indeed. It's good to have different one other than lattice based. > >> - I think the name is too long, we should find an abbreviation. >> - C++ comments neeed to be remoced >> - __attribute__ need to be removed or replaced by GGPRT macros. >> - Probably other cleanups. > > Let me do these changes after the first push of the patch. > > Is there any good shorter name, or an abbreviation? Libgcrypt tries to > support building by older C compilers (< C99) for older systems. Older > compiler needs shorter name. Classic McEliece is abbreviated 'CM' in its specification document, so s/MCELIECE6688128/CM6688128/g' is one approach. Are pre-C99 compilers supported for real, or is this merely an obsolete desired feature? Do you have any example of a pre-C99 compiler that can build libgcrypt? I recall trying to get libgcrypt to build with tcc long time ago and failed. I think the names aren't unreasonable long, and if someone wants support a pre-C99 compiler that can be achieved with a conditional #define GCRY_KEM_MCELIECE6688128F GCRY_KEM_CM6688128F', couldn't it? But maybe not worry about it until there is a known real use-case. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gcrypt-devel mailing list Gcrypt-devel@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gcrypt-devel
