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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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