On 09/03/12 02:05, Adam Harvey wrote:
On 9 March 2012 00:11, Remi Collet r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Le 08/03/2012 09:03, Michael Wallner a écrit :
Sorry for the delay, but I already explained the issue in
the bug report: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61291
Thanks, for the explanation.
It'd be worse to keep the wrong behavior, providing as tiger what it is not.
What can be done is to add a tiger192,3-broken php5.4 hash for BC of
those which may have used the new one.
It's serious enough so I'd consider it a factor for a new minor in short
time, but not for setting in stone
On 11/03/12 22:55, Michael Wallner wrote:
wat?
The new hashes are correct. I'm awfully sorry that there has been so much
trouble with the tiger hashes, but it happened and cannot be undone.
Whops, sorry. I got confused on this thread.
Change the order of what I said, then. Let the correct
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:52:52 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
Using a simple C program (linked against libmash)
Hash: fdb9019a79c33a95677e2097abae91eb0de00b3054bb5c39
So the result from php = 5.3.10 seems the right one.
Sorry for the delay, but I already explained the issue in
the bug report:
Le 08/03/2012 09:03, Michael Wallner a écrit :
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:52:52 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
Using a simple C program (linked against libmash)
Hash: fdb9019a79c33a95677e2097abae91eb0de00b3054bb5c39
So the result from php = 5.3.10 seems the right one.
Sorry for the delay, but I
2012/3/8 Remi Collet r...@fedoraproject.org
But mhash_001.phpt and mhash_003.phpt should not fail
(if we want a great PHP with 0 test failed).
Hi, all
That's what I would like to have ...
It would be perfect if new versions were not brought out if some tests
still fail.
I read some posts in
On 9 March 2012 00:11, Remi Collet r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Le 08/03/2012 09:03, Michael Wallner a écrit :
Sorry for the delay, but I already explained the issue in
the bug report: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61291
Thanks, for the explanation.
I'm still concerned about the idea that
On 03/08/2012 05:05 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
Agreed. I'm happy to mark them as XFAIL if that's what's expected. Mike?
Adam
If the 5.4 behavior is deemed correct for 5.4+, then the expected output
should be updated for 5.4+ tests - they should not be XFAIL.
The UPGRADING file, migration
Le 05/03/2012 17:44, Remi Collet a écrit :
Perhaps, the new result is the right one... but I don't find any other
tool to check it...
Using a simple C program (linked against libmash)
Hash: fdb9019a79c33a95677e2097abae91eb0de00b3054bb5c39
So the result from php = 5.3.10 seems the right one.
Please review https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61291
And attached patch
Without the patch
37 PASSED TESTS
0 SKIPPED TESTS
2 FAILED TESTS:
mhash_001.phpt
mhash_003.phpt
With the patch
34 PASSED TESTS
0 SKIPPED TESTS
5 FAILED TESTS:
hash_copy_001.phpt
hash_file_basic1.phpt
hash_hmac_basic.phpt
10 matches
Mail list logo
