7 Dec
2014
7 Dec
'14
5:13 p.m.
On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 13:50 +0100, Niels Möller wrote:
Question is, does that solve a real problem?
What do you mean by that?
If one prefers to not have that cast, one can call always call gcm_encrypt directly; GCM_ENCRYPT is an optional feature.
So my question is, do you think it would make your code easier to read and debug, if nettle provided a simple non-magic wrapper macro around gcm_encrypt (in addition to the current GCM_ENCRYPT macro which you find questionable), or would it be clearer to call gcm_encrypt directly?
No. Putting an other safer macro will not solve that issue. My concern is on the easiness to have a bug-free transition to 3.0 from 2.7.1.
regards, Nikos