>> 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...
Question if specifically about *partially* overlapping buffers. Or in other words it's not a question whether or not *fully* overlapping buffers, a.k.a. in-place processing, should be supported (they should) or may be used (they may). -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
