phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format (2)

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: <20151006075627.GA8442@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:56:27 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
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. http://goo.gl/tYzkvD

Curiously, for all compilers currently available on gcc.godbolt.org
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).

Alexander