Hi, Yair Elharrar!
For me it looks bad. :-/ Because, BN_sub doesn't handle this situation (r =
b):
1) BN_sub call BN_uadd(r,a,b), but r = b, then
2) BN_sub change r-neg, but r = b, then
3) BN_sub call BN_expand(r), then
4) BN_sub call BN_ucmp(a,b), but b here is not that b that was
Sorry, I don't think that breaks any const rules.
See explanation and example in ISO/IEC 14882 section 7.1.5.1.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:59 PM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Hi, Yair Elharrar!
Sorry, I don't think that breaks any const rules.
See explanation and example in ISO/IEC 14882 section 7.1.5.1.
First of all, OpenSSL was written in C, so ISO/IEC 14882 is not a
subject to reffer to (it is the C++ standard).
Let's see in ISO/IEC 9899 section 6.7.3:
The
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: memory corruption after usin BN_mod_inverse
Hi, Yair Elharrar!
Sorry, I don't think that breaks any const rules.
See explanation and example in ISO/IEC 14882 section 7.1.5.1.
First of all, OpenSSL was written in C, so ISO/IEC 14882 is not a
subject
Hi, Yair Elharrar!
For me it looks bad. :-/ Because, BN_sub doesn't handle this situation (r = b):
1) BN_sub call BN_uadd(r,a,b), but r = b, then
2) BN_sub change r-neg, but r = b, then
3) BN_sub call BN_expand(r), then
4) BN_sub call BN_ucmp(a,b), but b here is not that b that was at the
