On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 13:50 +0100, Niels Möller wrote: > >> Question is, does that solve a real problem? > > What do you mean by that? > If one prefers to not have that cast, one can call always call > gcm_encrypt directly; GCM_ENCRYPT is an optional feature. > > So my question is, do you think it would make your code easier to read > and debug, if nettle provided a simple non-magic wrapper macro around > gcm_encrypt (in addition to the current GCM_ENCRYPT macro which you find > questionable), or would it be clearer to call gcm_encrypt directly?
No. Putting an other safer macro will not solve that issue. My concern is on the easiness to have a bug-free transition to 3.0 from 2.7.1. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
