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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:45:01 -0400 From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: C99 in reference implementations I have a reference implementation of a prospective PHC entry written in "portable" C99. By "portable", I mean that it uses only standard C99 language features, has no external library dependencies, and should produce identical output regardless of host CPU architecture. However, it makes extensive use of C99 language features, including <stdint.h>/<stdbool.h>, mixed declarations and code, and variable-length arrays. Taking advantage of these features significantly improves readability, but will prevent the code from compiling on MSVC and any other compilers with poor C99 support. Does/should this pass muster for PHC submission requirements?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists