On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 23:16 +0100, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
+void sha384_init(SHA512_CTX *ctx) +{
- ctx->len = 0;
- ctx->h[0] = 0xcbbb9d5dc1059ed8ULL;
- ctx->h[1] = 0x629a292a367cd507ULL;
- ctx->h[2] = 0x9159015a3070dd17ULL;
- ctx->h[3] = 0x152fecd8f70e5939ULL;
- ctx->h[4] = 0x67332667ffc00b31ULL;
- ctx->h[5] = 0x8eb44a8768581511ULL;
- ctx->h[6] = 0xdb0c2e0d64f98fa7ULL;
- ctx->h[7] = 0x47b5481dbefa4fa4ULL;
We try to avoid the (U)LL suffix. The patch set looks good otherwise.
On 08.03.2017 11:12, Hans Leidekker wrote:
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 23:16 +0100, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
+void sha384_init(SHA512_CTX *ctx) +{
- ctx->len = 0;
- ctx->h[0] = 0xcbbb9d5dc1059ed8ULL;
- ctx->h[1] = 0x629a292a367cd507ULL;
- ctx->h[2] = 0x9159015a3070dd17ULL;
- ctx->h[3] = 0x152fecd8f70e5939ULL;
- ctx->h[4] = 0x67332667ffc00b31ULL;
- ctx->h[5] = 0x8eb44a8768581511ULL;
- ctx->h[6] = 0xdb0c2e0d64f98fa7ULL;
- ctx->h[7] = 0x47b5481dbefa4fa4ULL;
We try to avoid the (U)LL suffix. The patch set looks good otherwise.
Thanks for the review, this should be fixed in the new version.
Best regards, Sebastian