Re: [MirageOS-devel] inconsistent assumptions over interface error

[Hannes Mehnert <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA384

On 08/03/2014 12:18, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
> Also, we could just pull Base64 into a separate OPAM package since 
> it's very commonly cut-and-pasted.  I've taken a quick shot at
> this on https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-base64.  This is a
> different implementation (but possibly the same spec) as
> nocrypto's, so needs some review to see if they're compatible or
> not (padding is possibly slightly different).

While I didn't look into the algorithm, the interface is slightly
different - string vs Cstruct.t -- and I wonder whether we should have
an implementation providing both a string and Cstruct.t interface
(because conversion includes copying)?

Hannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD)

iQIcBAEBCQAGBQJT3iAdAAoJELyJZYjffCjulCkP/isArzMjGk/IWwSfKE5nhJcj
uNHajQOXeuSTjE7bKYn8oU61cNy8ktMYoMlPQxMXE5XRfhrGAoUJeXEbUJyarObf
F76/fCSzC544ExRQa2oEoSvSHBBcuZNeSDCgrPCQ57J3eudpiNvoUpOmG14FvVTO
ndOl5zNnPRslJk9vV/Cd7gDNvLygLKd4foMQZYxwQnHoCUxFARz5LWfWfF3bgqFa
mb4HpD3gWgLmNYBrltG/BDnLxT6ipvdXonCVKbbkb8p1IVpf2JLwmyx4XM1xPluA
pdQyotquM6hf5WkbJC9WXgiNPjC3B8jEif+A3ZivVjV7PZ++i5KGVtQG9BREQC1j
/q/lxsRHrdpOIPy76Ue0oOFMr1QZYwO8IY9z9Q+jM9rvVe27fUE65WbKYTK7ecHI
7Sru61/uAxvcmqiO7sWEyOz0ykKEdF3VaT9csau6b6vesEwpl0+NSCkoixZhdBqj
Tn5npelXnNCjLKT/xRFJ8C8Yj11MoGSUAM5fNHcEHcqO+jjvJrNrrpwn2FDryCDz
fW/GlJTIwFXzbsCLv+SBB/+UVVmeqPTMk6Ly2DzBXOnYam6nAUkiuRvE+NDrB1jp
Z1o5lxN4TEkwOHsWKHFSPOfu2jcJQL8JylzynKxCkf1ADnetfWfOt7LVwrhvEE6o
liVMxTuS7nWLABXmhLkF
=HHno
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel