Re: [PATCH 1/3] sha1: update pointer and remaining length after subfunction call
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Sep 12, 2012, 18:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vhar3ccmr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <e6f0051409811fc57385ae712d3256772044bf09.1347442430.git.ydroneaud@opteya.com>
Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com> writes:
Show 29 quoted lines
> There's no need to update the pointer and remaining length before
> leaving or calling the SHA1 sub function.
>
> Additionnaly, the partial block code could be looking more like
> the full block handling branch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>
> ---
> block-sha1/sha1.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block-sha1/sha1.c b/block-sha1/sha1.c
> index a8d4bf9..c1af112 100644
> --- a/block-sha1/sha1.c
> +++ b/block-sha1/sha1.c
> @@ -248,11 +248,11 @@ void blk_SHA1_Update(blk_SHA_CTX *ctx, const void *data, unsigned long len)
> left = len;
> memcpy(lenW + (char *)ctx->W, data, left);
> lenW = (lenW + left) & 63;
> - len -= left;
> - data = ((const char *)data + left);
> if (lenW)
> return;
> blk_SHA1_Block(ctx, ctx->W);
> + data = ((const char *)data + left);
> + len -= left;
> }
> while (len >= 64) {
> blk_SHA1_Block(ctx, data);It is not wrong per-se, but doesn't the compiler optimize it out if this is worth doing? Just being curious.