Thanks for your comment,
but no, I didn't talk about performance.
I understand this is not very costly, especially compared with other
crypto operations.
My concern was mostly about keeping the source code easy to understand
and 'logically consistent'.
I am trying to save the reader from asking himself "what is the use of
the '& 0x7F' masking operation ?".
Le 25/08/2013 12:23, PMHager a écrit :
If your intention is performance optimization you could even replace
if((*p & 0x80) == 0)
with
if((signed char)(*p) >= 0)
as you cannot assume that all compilers will do it correctly themselves.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] On
Behalf Of Michel
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:44 AM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: UTF8 decoding, unneeded byte masking
In a_utf8.c, lines 85 and 86 (1.0.1e) :
...
if((*p & 0x80) == 0) { // as this byte looks like : 0xxxxxxx
value = *p++ & 0x7f; // this line could as well be written : value =
*p++;
...
If I don't miss something, it would seems clearer to me.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
