Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html