phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format (2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 05:50:32 +0200
From: Thomas Pornin <pornin@...et.org>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format (2)

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 04:17:53AM +0300, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> OTOH this points to another question: why did use unsigned long type
> at all?

It is for wider compatibility. Though the year is 2015, not all
programming environments are up to compatiblity with C99 and thus may
lack <stdint.h> and its convenient types like uint32_t. Similarly, I do
not use C99-isms like mixing declarations and statements. I aim at C89
compatibility.

The 'unsigned int' type may be smaller than 32 bits. This is especially
true of some embedded platforms, either because of backward
compatibility with previous software, or because the platform really is
16-bit. The 'unsigned long' type, however, is guaranteed to offer at
least 32 bits.

	--Thomas