Re: bcrypt: Add a builtin sha384/sha512 implementation. (v2)

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

On 08.03.2017 12:29, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
> I was wondering about that too, but it looks like we have already
> various places where 64-bit consts are used without any ugly tricks.

I think that is a gcc extension. MSVC tells me off for using 64 bit
literals without a suffix, and cuts off the upper bits.
> Examples are in tests, include files, and also implementation code.
> Is it really necessary? Or is it only the suffix which causes trouble?

Out of curiosity, what is the problem with the suffix?

Simon