On Sun, Nov 24 2013, David Bremner wrote:
> The following code, when linked with libnotmuch.a and libutil.a does a
> passable imitation of sha1sum on amd64 (and I guess also i386) but
> computes a different digest on powerpc and probably sparc and s390x.
>
> In the long run we should maybe
David Bremner writes:
> The following code, when linked with libnotmuch.a and libutil.a does a
> passable imitation of sha1sum on amd64 (and I guess also i386) but
> computes a different digest on powerpc and probably sparc and s390x.
>
> In the long run we should maybe outsource hash
The following code, when linked with libnotmuch.a and libutil.a does a
passable imitation of sha1sum on amd64 (and I guess also i386) but
computes a different digest on powerpc and probably sparc and s390x.
In the long run we should maybe outsource hash computations to
e.g. librhash, but I'd
The following code, when linked with libnotmuch.a and libutil.a does a
passable imitation of sha1sum on amd64 (and I guess also i386) but
computes a different digest on powerpc and probably sparc and s390x.
In the long run we should maybe outsource hash computations to
e.g. librhash, but I'd
David Bremner da...@tethera.net writes:
The following code, when linked with libnotmuch.a and libutil.a does a
passable imitation of sha1sum on amd64 (and I guess also i386) but
computes a different digest on powerpc and probably sparc and s390x.
In the long run we should maybe outsource
On Sun, Nov 24 2013, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
The following code, when linked with libnotmuch.a and libutil.a does a
passable imitation of sha1sum on amd64 (and I guess also i386) but
computes a different digest on powerpc and probably sparc and s390x.
In the long run we should
