Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] t/helper/test-sha1: prepare for an unsafe mode

> > Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.  I think, with
> > the limitation I mentioned above, it would probably require a decent
> > amount of refactoring if we took a different approach, and I'm fine with
> > going with Taylor's current approach unless he wants to do that
> > refactoring (in which case, great).
> 
> I think it does buy you something for real code, which is that you don't
> have to remember to consistently call the unsafe_ variants of all of the
> various function pointers.
> 
> For instance, if you do
> 
>     the_hash_algo->unsafe_init_fn(...);
> 
> early on, and then later on by mistake write:
> 
>     the_hash_algo->update_fn(...);
> 
> Then your code is broken and will (as brian said) either in the best
> case produce wrong results, or likely segfault.