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

Message-ID: <521E0204.8000404@Oracle.COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:58:28 +0100
From: Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat@...cle.COM>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] C99 in reference implementations



On 08/13/13 03:49, Marsh Ray wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Franke [mailto:dfoxfranke@...il.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 7:33 PM
>>
>> Everything below is fine by me, but how about <stdbool.h>?
>
> I would avoid it. At least on its own it seems like a pretty trivial thing for which to drag in a whole C99 dependency.
>
> But that's my personal bias from my (MSVC-heavy) experience.

I would agree that <stdbool.h> should be avoid and I don't have an MSVC 
bias ;-)

In Solaris code I often tend to use boolean_t (in code that is compiled 
with Solaris Studio, GCC and Clang) but this context I don't see any of 
the common/{de-facto}standard boolean types adding much value.

-- 
Darren J Moffat