Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:103122 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70775 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2018 14:36:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-oi0-f54.google.com) (209.85.218.54) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 4 Sep 2018 14:36:04 -0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l202-v6so5758048oig.7 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 03:38:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9ZThi4NDIDk0xyNpf6dBp9gQqJIkeWUDpye1sBRkUZ0=; b=cPijOGZkCMvfcB2cCEeiH9ckNcpfrBqDlgDxhZTCPuWYxPW4Pm5GZGKcmkso3UJkHg aJBzjnkqUfmBZfCYSUO+8+pxDaMwmYgWT3aVie06cpkVkYEsYMVWxZxrrrLHm0zbi2RC Pfe0DP6TVYnStFWVOtabALPgOI/1Q8hmC8+h/zHWg3Ret6BHr1RNF7qfEES6FNn1E6u0 0WLNkBE0MtCLe6Jy71mShoNvzwNXHFG2KLKuWThc6Tx2CVcOLADYvzuRjRsBzD0VaGQS 6UGFtzO6LDKarF6X6D08lh2yc7sB0YADjdw8LdHYtMCcG7+T3ldVFINKcymNG4XcI9at OVbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BeQlnwNy/ej9mjQ6zY+DOEidRCuvA8k7c+fJuYiPN8SfUhRsd6 Utw0IJ/rU4UB2bxFJtWR8PejBaxHC5ZSAdfXJuA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYWjCj5Rnhmt9bFHySp0sfNNO/CNdhJ84sYXzapn2srE76ak2FW0rcwTtK0LiL3qDVKHoT9xAnBPtlmbGvM0Ac= X-Received: by 2002:aca:6c5:: with SMTP id 188-v6mr25047946oig.135.1536057519499; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 03:38:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1e192647-2786-2d5e-946a-620cdeef5f55@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <1e192647-2786-2d5e-946a-620cdeef5f55@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 12:38:28 +0200 Message-ID: To: Christoph Becker Cc: Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: RFC Proposal: Make the hash extension always available From: kalle@php.net (Kalle Sommer Nielsen) Den tir. 4. sep. 2018 kl. 12.20 skrev Christoph M. Becker : > That appears to be sensible. Anyhow, *if* we do this, we also should > move the MD5, SHA1 and CRC32 code from ext/standard to ext/hash (MD5 and > SHA1 is currently dead code in ext/hash, and the CRC32 implementation > seems to be duplicated). We should also have a look at crypt_sha256.c > and crypt_sha512.c (of ext/standard) which likely duplicate some code > already available in ext/hash. Those makes a lot of sense to do, and definitely something we should if this RFC passes -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net