phc-discussions - C99 in reference implementations

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87zjspfnj6.fsf@wolfjaw.dfranke.us>
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?