Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-23 Thread Jakob Bohm via openssl-users
On 2022-11-15 21:36, Phillip Susi wrote: Jakob Bohm via openssl-users writes: Performance wise, using a newer compiler that implements int64_t etc. via frequent library calls, while technically correct, is going to run unnecessarily slow compared to having algorithms that actually use the

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-15 Thread Phillip Susi
Jakob Bohm via openssl-users writes: > Performance wise, using a newer compiler that implements int64_t etc. via > frequent library calls, while technically correct, is going to run > unnecessarily slow compared to having algorithms that actually use the > optimal integral sizes for the

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-11 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
Jakob Bohm wrote in <5257e6e7-94e3-896d-73c8-9c17b29b8...@wisemo.com>: |On 2022-11-06 23:14, raf via openssl-users wrote: |> On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 02:22:55PM +, Michael Wojcik atmicrofocus.com> wrote: ... |Regarding C90 compilers, it is important to realize that some system |vendors

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-11 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 16:01 +0100, Jakob Bohm via openssl-users wrote: > On 2022-11-06 23:14, raf via openssl-users wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 02:22:55PM +, Michael Wojcik > > wrote: > > > > > > From: openssl-users On > > > > Behalf Of raf via > > > > openssl-users > > > > Sent:

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-11 Thread Jakob Bohm via openssl-users
On 2022-11-06 23:14, raf via openssl-users wrote: On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 02:22:55PM +, Michael Wojcik wrote: From: openssl-users On Behalf Of raf via openssl-users Sent: Friday, 4 November, 2022 18:54 On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:29:45PM +, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users wrote:

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-06 Thread raf via openssl-users
On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 02:22:55PM +, Michael Wojcik wrote: > > From: openssl-users On Behalf Of raf > > via > > openssl-users > > Sent: Friday, 4 November, 2022 18:54 > > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:29:45PM +, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm

RE: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-05 Thread Michael Wojcik via openssl-users
> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of raf via > openssl-users > Sent: Friday, 4 November, 2022 18:54 > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:29:45PM +, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users > wrote: > > > > > I'm inclined to agree. While there's an argument for backward compatibility, > > C99 was

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-04 Thread raf via openssl-users
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:29:45PM +, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users wrote: > > From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Phillip > > Susi > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 November, 2022 11:45 > > > > The only thing to fix is don't put your compiler in strict C90 mode. > > I'm inclined to agree. While

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-03 Thread Phillip Susi
Michael Wojcik via openssl-users writes: > I'm inclined to agree. While there's an argument for backward > compatibility, C99 was standardized nearly a quarter of a century > ago. OpenSSL 1.x is younger than C99. It doesn't seem like an > unreasonable requirement. That and there is no

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-02 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
Michael Wojcik wrote in : |> From: openssl-users On Behalf \ |> Of Phillip |> Susi |> Sent: Wednesday, 2 November, 2022 11:45 |> |> The only thing to fix is don't put your compiler in strict C90 mode. | |I'm inclined to agree. While there's an argument for backward compatibil\ |ity,

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-02 Thread Dennis Clarke via openssl-users
On 11/2/22 18:29, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users wrote: From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Phillip Susi Sent: Wednesday, 2 November, 2022 11:45 The only thing to fix is don't put your compiler in strict C90 mode. I'm inclined to agree. While there's an argument for backward compatibility,

RE: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-02 Thread Michael Wojcik via openssl-users
> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Phillip > Susi > Sent: Wednesday, 2 November, 2022 11:45 > > The only thing to fix is don't put your compiler in strict C90 mode. I'm inclined to agree. While there's an argument for backward compatibility, C99 was standardized nearly a quarter of a century

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-02 Thread Phillip Susi
Dennis Clarke via openssl-users writes: > On 11/2/22 07:30, Tomas Mraz wrote: >> No, long long and unsigned long long is required and it was required >> for quite some time. The code is mostly C90 but not strictly. >> I suppose on platforms with 64bit long type we could make it work >> without

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-02 Thread Dennis Clarke via openssl-users
On 11/2/22 07:30, Tomas Mraz wrote: No, long long and unsigned long long is required and it was required for quite some time. The code is mostly C90 but not strictly. I suppose on platforms with 64bit long type we could make it work without long long though. Pull requests are welcome. Tomas

Re: an oldie but a goodie .. ISO C90 does not support 'long long'

2022-11-02 Thread Tomas Mraz
No, long long and unsigned long long is required and it was required for quite some time. The code is mostly C90 but not strictly. I suppose on platforms with 64bit long type we could make it work without long long though. Pull requests are welcome. Tomas Mraz, OpenSSL On Tue, 2022-11-01 at