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: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:56:27 +0300
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format (2)

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 07:20:53AM +0100, Samuel Neves wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 05:19 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> > Maybe I should just tell everyone to use icc, which doesn't seem to have
> > these problems (and generally produces better code than gcc to boot).
> I'm pretty sure any aggressive enough compiler will do these. Cf.

Curiously, for all compilers currently available on
except for icc, adding -fwrapv results in code getting generated for the
assert().  (But we should not use this as an excuse for writing broken
checks like this.)  icc appears to silently ignore -fwrapv (for gcc
"compatibility" maybe).


Powered by blists - more mailing lists