> On Mar 4, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Andy Polyakov via RT <r...@openssl.org> wrote: > > Fear is irrational and destructive feeling. Having faith that world is > better than that it nothing but healthy :-) What I'm saying is that > let's put a little bit more substance into discourse. Would anybody > consider it *sane* programming practice to rely on partially overlapping > buffers in *general* case? I.e. without actually *knowing* (as opposite > to *assuming*) what's gong on? [Control question: does compiler > guarantee order of references to memory?] As said in last message I > don't consider it sane and even consider it natural [which means that > I'd expect majority to not consider it sane too].
One the cool features of the OCB code some folks I know to be using and relying on is that it supports in-place encryption. You give it a buffer, and it is encrypted in place. This is specifically promised by the API and is noticeably fast. No idea whether this is a useful datapoint... -- Viktor. -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev