On Tuesday, 18 June 2019 09:01:31 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> They're the only ones we couldn't fall back to Linux's AF_ALG or OpenSSL's
> support, which often contain more optimised code that ours.
If we remove Keccak, then we could remove all the hash implementations from
QtCore, on Linux, and
On Tuesday, 18 June 2019 11:01:07 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> On 18/06/2019 18:01, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > We have them because we made a mistake when we added SHA3 support. We've
> > kept them for compatibility, for people who had hashes to compare to and
> > had accidentally
On 18/06/2019 18:01, Thiago Macieira wrote:
We have them because we made a mistake when we added SHA3 support. We've kept
them for compatibility, for people who had hashes to compare to and had
accidentally used Keccak.
They're the only ones we couldn't fall back to Linux's AF_ALG or OpenSSL's
s
On 18 Jun 2019, at 11:30, Richard Moore mailto:r...@kde.org>>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 17:02, Thiago Macieira
mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:
We have them because we made a mistake when we added SHA3 support. We've kept
them for compatibility, for people who had hashes to compa
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 17:02, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> We have them because we made a mistake when we added SHA3 support. We've
> kept
> them for compatibility, for people who had hashes to compare to and had
> accidentally used Keccak.
>
>
Yes, we should deprecate this.
Rich
___
We have them because we made a mistake when we added SHA3 support. We've kept
them for compatibility, for people who had hashes to compare to and had
accidentally used Keccak.
They're the only ones we couldn't fall back to Linux's AF_ALG or OpenSSL's
support, which often contain more optimised
