On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Andy Polyakov wrote:
I don't find it hard to believe that there're 16-bit (or even 8-bit) systems
out there. I find it hard to believe that the originator managed to get
OpenSSL 0.9.8 working on a 16-bit system, even without SHA-512 support. A.
Lots of embedded work is
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jim Schneider wrote:
Actually, my point about embedded systems wasn't that they'd necessarily have
the full suite of OpenSSL, but that a pared-down version would be desirable.
If all I want to do is triple DES with anonymous DH for key exchange on an
embedded platform
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Andy Polyakov wrote:
Do note [when] num [as in memcpy(ovec,ovec+num,8)] is guaranteed to be
positive. Question was can you imagine memcpy implementation that would
fail to handle overlapping regions when source address is *larger* than
destination? Question was *not* if
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Jack Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:42:37PM +0200, Andy Polyakov wrote:
1) In openssl-0.9.8/crypto/des/cfb_enc.c line 170 there is memcpy
(ovec,ovec+num,8); and since ovec and ovec+num will overlap sometimes,
this function relies on undocumented/undefined
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Andy Polyakov wrote:
1) In openssl-0.9.8/crypto/des/cfb_enc.c line 170 there is memcpy
(ovec,ovec+num,8); and since ovec and ovec+num will overlap
sometimes,
this function relies on undocumented/undefined behavior of memcpy?
The original reason for choosing of memcpy
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Brian Candler via RT wrote:
openssl-0.9.8/include/openssl/md5.h changed some definitions of 'unsigned
long' to 'size_t', but forgot to #include sys/types.h
Actually, stddef.h is what you want to include to get size_t.
Brian
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
No. The C standard is not telling the compiler what to do. It is saying
what the system must do when it runs the particular source code. If the
compiler cannot generate code that makes the system as a whole comply with
the standard, then the
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
Right, and the standard doesnt require them to. Nor does it require
them
to perform the operations in order as seen by another processor.
OK- my apologies. I was misreading what you were saying. We're on the
same page.
Right, and Im
