phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJm83bBvxfsaBJVyAP8zq30_co0NFJkFd4smduTTAii_=Jz7FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:49:18 -0400
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] C99 in reference implementations

On Aug 10, 2013 3:01 PM, "Rich Felker" <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:

> Personally, I think the fact that C99 is nearly 15 years old and not
> even the current version of the standard anymore is sufficient
> justification to say "C" means a language which includes all C99
> features (except perhaps those which C11 made optional).

I just checked, and VLAs are in this category.  I think that's sufficient
justification for avoiding them. Barring any contrary recommendations from
panel members, I think I'll nix those but hold on to the rest.

Content of type "text/html" skipped