On 03/14/16 17:12, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
>> It looks like the ULL suffix should be safe today;
>
> This is misleading statement. *Today* U suffix should be safe, because
> standard specifies that compiler should pick type automatically
> depending on value of the constant. In order words
> It looks like the ULL suffix should be safe today;
This is misleading statement. *Today* U suffix should be safe, because
standard specifies that compiler should pick type automatically
depending on value of the constant. In order words suffices beyond U are
required only if you need constant
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:27:23AM +, noloa...@gmail.com via RT wrote:
> >> static const uint64_t blake2b_IV[8] =
> >> {
> >> 0x6a09e667f3bcc908U, 0xbb67ae8584caa73bU,
> >> 0x3c6ef372fe94f82bU, 0xa54ff53a5f1d36f1U,
> >> 0x510e527fade682d1U, 0x9b05688c2b3e6c1fU,
> >>
>> static const uint64_t blake2b_IV[8] =
>> {
>> 0x6a09e667f3bcc908U, 0xbb67ae8584caa73bU,
>> 0x3c6ef372fe94f82bU, 0xa54ff53a5f1d36f1U,
>> 0x510e527fade682d1U, 0x9b05688c2b3e6c1fU,
>> 0x1f83d9abfb41bd6bU, 0x5be0cd19137e2179U
>> };
>>
>> I've run into this before, but in C++. I
>> static const uint64_t blake2b_IV[8] =
>> {
>> 0x6a09e667f3bcc908U, 0xbb67ae8584caa73bU,
>> 0x3c6ef372fe94f82bU, 0xa54ff53a5f1d36f1U,
>> 0x510e527fade682d1U, 0x9b05688c2b3e6c1fU,
>> 0x1f83d9abfb41bd6bU, 0x5be0cd19137e2179U
>> };
>>
>> I've run into this before, but in C++. I
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 07:15:52AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Kurt Roeckx via RT wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:30:54AM +, noloa...@gmail.com via RT wrote:
> >> crypto/blake2/blake2b.c:27: warning: integer constant is too large for
> static const uint64_t blake2b_IV[8] =
> {
> 0x6a09e667f3bcc908U, 0xbb67ae8584caa73bU,
> 0x3c6ef372fe94f82bU, 0xa54ff53a5f1d36f1U,
> 0x510e527fade682d1U, 0x9b05688c2b3e6c1fU,
> 0x1f83d9abfb41bd6bU, 0x5be0cd19137e2179U
> };
>
> I've run into this before, but in C++. I think you
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 07:15:52AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Kurt Roeckx via RT wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:30:54AM +, noloa...@gmail.com via RT wrote:
> >> crypto/blake2/blake2b.c:27: warning: integer constant is too large for
> static const uint64_t blake2b_IV[8] =
> {
> 0x6a09e667f3bcc908U, 0xbb67ae8584caa73bU,
> 0x3c6ef372fe94f82bU, 0xa54ff53a5f1d36f1U,
> 0x510e527fade682d1U, 0x9b05688c2b3e6c1fU,
> 0x1f83d9abfb41bd6bU, 0x5be0cd19137e2179U
> };
>
> I've run into this before, but in C++. I think you
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Kurt Roeckx via RT wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:30:54AM +, noloa...@gmail.com via RT wrote:
>> crypto/blake2/blake2b.c:27: warning: integer constant is too large for
>> 'unsigned long' type
>
> That's a uint64_t. Why do you have an
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Kurt Roeckx via RT wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:30:54AM +, noloa...@gmail.com via RT wrote:
>> crypto/blake2/blake2b.c:27: warning: integer constant is too large for
>> 'unsigned long' type
>
> That's a uint64_t. Why do you have an
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:30:54AM +, noloa...@gmail.com via RT wrote:
> crypto/blake2/blake2b.c:27: warning: integer constant is too large for
> 'unsigned long' type
That's a uint64_t. Why do you have an "unsigned long" as 64 bit
uint64_t?
Kurt
--
Ticket here:
cc -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DOPENSSL_THREADS
-DOPENSSL_NO_DYNAMIC_ENGINE -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT
-DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM
-DPOLY1305_ASM -DOPENSSLDIR="\"/usr/local/ssl\""
-DENGINESDIR="\"/usr/local/lib/engines\"" -O3 -D_REENTRANT -arch ppc
13 matches
Mail list logo