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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C734471BA16@uxcn10-6.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:41:31 +0000
From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@...auckland.ac.nz>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] C99 in reference implementations

Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> writes:

>- If you want to support a wide range of compilers, including badly
>  outdated ones, mixed declarations and code and stdbool.h are just
>  gratuitous non-portability. 

+1.  There's still a surprisingly large developer base using VC++ 6.0,
particularly freeware/shareware developers, because it was the last non-
bloat/non-license-locked Windows compiler.  Every few years when I ask my
users whether they still need VC++ 6.0 support I get a pile of replies asking
me to keep it.  It's not only small-scale users either, as recently as a few
months ago I had to do some remote debugging with developers at a
multinational corporation (market cap in the tens of billions) and the
compiler I ended up screen-sharing with them was VC++ 6.0.

Peter.