You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In order to have an identical behavior of MixBlock procedure (using a Longint variable i.e. a 32 bits), on a 32bits or 64bits CPU, I propose this adaptation in the unit onguard.pas:
The old code...
{$I onguard.inc}
{$I-} { I/O checks disabled}
{$Q-} {Integer overflow check disabled.
Warning : at least one function (MixBlock) causes overflow}
...should become:
{$I onguard.inc}
{$I-} { I/O checks disabled}
{$IFDEF CPU32} // proposal of fix, for an identical behavior of MixBlock and HashElf (at least) using a Longint variable (32 bits), on a 32bits or 64bits CPU
{$Q-}
{$ENDIF}
{$IFDEF CPU64}
{$Q-}
{$R-}
{$ENDIF} {Integer overflow check disabled.
Warning : at least one function (MixBlock) causes overflow}
Regards.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello,
In order to have an identical behavior of MixBlock procedure (using a Longint variable i.e. a 32 bits), on a 32bits or 64bits CPU, I propose this adaptation in the unit onguard.pas:
The old code...
...should become:
Regards.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: