Le dimanche 08 juin 2014 à 15:46 +0200, Marek Behun a écrit : > 300 lines of code only to > wrap external library calls. In those 300 lines one could write some > simpler, faster hashmap hash function (isn't crc32 or something simpler > good enough for this?),
Back in our bugzilla, your only concern seemed to be about our package depending on OpenSSL. While I understand that concern with all the recent security flaws in that lib, do you have any numbers to back your new-found concern regarding speed? As for using something else, SHA1 was introduced nearly 7 years ago, precisely to replace a custom XOR hash: commit 19b3b1fd8feb343a690331cafe88ef10b34b9d98 Author: Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> Date: Tue Jul 31 17:04:13 2007 -0700 See this thread for some reasoning http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/026730.html > or one could copy the entire code for sha1 from another library. commit a39377cbcbd3091095efbeab25bec18ae520147e Author: Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> Date: Tue Sep 23 09:22:07 2008 -0700 Revert "Render: Use built-in SHA1 library" This reverts commit d3bd31fddff7894f89ba80a3cdddff49aff08db8. X.org should not be providing a custom SHA1 implementation. Bundled libraries are distributions' worst nightmares and this particular debate has been settled. > Depending on external crypto library because of a hashmap is insane for > Christ's sake. I fail to see the insanity of depending on other libraries when they fit the bill. Rémi _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
