From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1115 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Solar Designer Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: FreeSec crypt() Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:45:46 +0400 Message-ID: <20120613164546.GA23407@openwall.com> References: <20120612235113.GA21296@openwall.com> <20120613011842.GA163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120613061032.GH17860@port70.net> <20120613125839.GB163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120613131807.GA22380@openwall.com> <20120613145603.GD163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339605953 26266 80.91.229.3 (13 Jun 2012 16:45:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:45:53 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1116-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jun 13 18:45:52 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Seqha-0005pV-4Z for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:45:50 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 24523 invoked by uid 550); 13 Jun 2012 16:45:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 24515 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2012 16:45:49 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120613145603.GD163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1115 Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:56:03AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 05:18:07PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > > Note that even if the behavior were defined, this code seems to have > > > different behavior for high bytes depending on the signedness of char. ... > > Why would signedness of char matter > > if the behavior of the signed char overflowing left shift were defined? > > Well if char is signed, (char)0x80 << 1 is -256. If char is unsigned, > (char)0x80 << 1 is 256. Sure, but we had: const char *key; u_char *q; *q++ = *key << 1; so while *key << 1 is either -256 or 256 (promoted to int or unsigned int), those high bits get dropped on the assignment to *q anyway, resulting in the same value there either way. No? Alexander