Re: Numeric constants as strings
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Feb 19, 2007, 09:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vbqjq8ojr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <200702190916.35813.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm working on bringing my hash width literals patch up to > date now that 1.5.0 has passed.
I do not want to risk discouraging public discussion on this topic, but I am not sure if this is really worth it.
It is not like if/when we find SHA-1 is inadequate we would just switch to SHA-256 and redefine HASH_BYTES from 20 to 32 and be done with it. With the need for backward compatibility, we would probably end up changing "unsigned char sha1[20]" to something that allows us to tell which hash function's result we are talking about, like:
struct {
enum { SHA_1, SHA_256 } type;
union {
unsigned char sha1[20];
unsigned char sha256[32];
} u;
};