> I don't have a horse in this race; but I am curious as to why
> you wouldn't ask for `chunkOverhead = 16' as that seems to be
> your intent as well as what the expression works out to on any
> machine in common use.
Sorry, after I sent my long explanation I see what you are really
asking. I
> I don't have a horse in this race; but I am curious as to why
> you wouldn't ask for `chunkOverhead = 16' as that seems to be
> your intent as well as what the expression works out to on any
> machine in common use.
To avoid copying data when perform FFI calls to common cipher routines
(such
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 18:07, Thomas DuBuisson
wrote:
> If not, perhaps we could make "chunkOverhead = max 16 (2 *
> sizeOf (undefined ::Int))" so it will be the same on 64 and 32
> bit systems (a 128 bit boundary, nice and fast for most modern
> cipher algorithms, sadly asking for it to match has
All,
(I notice ByteString still isn't under l...@h.o ownership, which is good
because this way I can avoid the bureaucracy and e-mail the
maintainers directly)
The following is a Data.ByteString comment for the (non-exported)
function zipWith'
--
-- | (...) Rewrite rules
-- are used to automatica
