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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 05:50:32 +0200
From: Thomas Pornin <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format (2)

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 04:17:53AM +0300, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> OTOH this points to another question: why did use unsigned long type
> at all?

It is for wider compatibility. Though the year is 2015, not all
programming environments are up to compatiblity with C99 and thus may
lack <stdint.h> and its convenient types like uint32_t. Similarly, I do
not use C99-isms like mixing declarations and statements. I aim at C89

The 'unsigned int' type may be smaller than 32 bits. This is especially
true of some embedded platforms, either because of backward
compatibility with previous software, or because the platform really is
16-bit. The 'unsigned long' type, however, is guaranteed to offer at
least 32 bits.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists