TL;DR -- Don't read the diff, look at the revised code. > The comment and code here are a slight mismatch, since qsize is dynamically > computed (but limited to three values, the largest of which is used to size > the > local variable). It's not clear that using SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH for the > check would actually be better, though.
If you can think of a more-c lear comment, let me know. But checking against qsize is the right thing to do. > >+ int seed_is_random = seed_in == NULL; > > This part seems really bogus; seed_is_random is an int, but seed_in is const > unsigned char *; the assignment makes no sense. No, it's like "seed_in == NULL ? 1 : 0" > I guess the intent is to declare the variable in the outer loop? Nope. > and seed_in is never read after this point. It was set up before the loop. > The grammar here is slightly unusual; "for lengths of at least 2048 bits" > or "for lengths 2048 bits and larger" would feel more natural to me. Open a ticket :) _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
