Re: code cracking or how do you know you've got the correct key?
From: Phil Carmody (thefatphil_demunged_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 12/29/04
- Next message: Ernest Hammingweight: "Mutual authentication using symmetric crypto: ISO 9798-2 versusMAP2"
- Previous message: BRG: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Maybe in reply to: Simon Johnson: "Re: code cracking or how do you know you've got the correct key?"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: code cracking or how do you know you've got the correct key?"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: code cracking or how do you know you've got the correct key?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 29 Dec 2004 11:08:24 +0200
"John E. Hadstate" <jh113355@hotmail.com> writes:
> Unless the 0xF0 gets sign extended when promoted to an int.
0xF0 is already an int.
> I have used a C compiler that sees 0xF0 as a char.
When? By whose definition of "C compiler". Doug's the man, standards-wise,
but the various draft versions I have access to all indicate that 0xF0
has always been an int since at least C hit ISO.
If you're talking about '\xF0', then surprisingly the issue is
unchanged. However, I do know of several C/C++ compilers who
have "helpfully" treated that as if it were of char type, even
when being told to compile as C rather than C++. i.e. they were
broken.
Phil
-- The gun is good. The penis is evil... Go forth and kill.
- Next message: Ernest Hammingweight: "Mutual authentication using symmetric crypto: ISO 9798-2 versusMAP2"
- Previous message: BRG: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Maybe in reply to: Simon Johnson: "Re: code cracking or how do you know you've got the correct key?"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: code cracking or how do you know you've got the correct key?"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: code cracking or how do you know you've got the correct key?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|