Peter Marschall wrote:
On Sunday, 30. August 2015 23:58:09 Howard Chu wrote:
>> Please note the run index i changed direction, which causes different
>> results because of >>=.
>> In my tests [double checked before sending this mail] on an amd64 [little-
>> endian architecture], the patched version converts 0x3837363534333231 to
>> - "87654321" in the !WORDS_BIGENDIAN case [unchanged]
>> - "12345678" in the WORDS_BIGENDIAN case
>> [using the fact that 0x3N = "N" for 0 <= N <=9]
>> To me that looks correct.
>> What issues did you see exactly?
> That is exactly wrong. Given any integer input the string should be
> identical regardless of endianness. It should be "87654321" in both cases.
> With your patch, hashes will be incompatible between different machine
Please read my mail again!
I tested the WORDS_BIGENDIAN case on a *little-endian* architecture using the
same data as the !WORDS_BIGENDIAN case.
In that case [i.e. testing on the "wrong-endian" architecture] the result *is
expected* to come out in reversed order.
Otherwise it would end-up in wrong order on the "right-endian" architecture.
Do you agree?
The point is that your patch *always* reverses the order of the bytes. On a
big-endian machine the code should be a no-op.
If you don't, please hint me to some code that allows me to check and fix my
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/