On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > This is downright horrible for code maintainability. We have a type for > revision numbers. > > It's bad enough we don't have a stable type for revision numbers across > platforms. But now you're abusing it and using 32-bit integers in some > places > for them and 64-bit values in others. > > Now that you're doing this I'm now of the opinion that I should veto the > code > that limits them to 32-bits at the RA layer. Because all it's done is > encourage us to do things like this.
Thanks for the review. r1575447 fix the inconsistency. Two comments: * The keys are being used one-way, i.e. any type > input type will do * Padding is horrible because it inserts sections of random data into a *hash* key. Valgrind might find these instances, if run on Windows. -- Stefan^2.
