>> static const uint64_t blake2b_IV[8] =
>> {
>> 0x6a09e667f3bcc908U, 0xbb67ae8584caa73bU,
>> 0x3c6ef372fe94f82bU, 0xa54ff53a5f1d36f1U,
>> 0x510e527fade682d1U, 0x9b05688c2b3e6c1fU,
>> 0x1f83d9abfb41bd6bU, 0x5be0cd19137e2179U
>> };
>>
>> I've run into this before, but in C++. I think you need ULL, and not
>> U. But I don't know if it will adversely affect other compilers and
>> platforms.
>
> So I guess where in the situation where "U" is not supported by
> some compilers and "ULL" not by others, where both should be
> valid.
I'm guessing GCC 4.0.1 is using an intermediate 32-bit value when it
encounters the U. Its triggering a warning, but its not causing a
failure of the self test (presuming there's good code coverage).
Also see http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Long-Long.html.
Jeff
--
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4422
Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
