OCB has been around for a long time.
It's simpler, faster and more secure than AES-GCM.
RFC 7253 was published in 2014. OCB also won the CAESAR competition
along with AEGIS.
It's been implemented in OpenSSL and other libraries for years.
So, why isn't everybody using it instead of GCM? And why don't we
have it in Zig already?
The sad reason for this was patents. GCM was invented only to work
around these patents, and for all this time, OCB was that nice
thing that everybody knew existed but that couldn't be freely used.
That just changed. The OCB patents are now abandoned, and OCB's
author just announced that OCB was officially public domain.
Beside the new order being consistent with the ThreadPool API and making
more sense, this shuffling allows to write the context argument type in
terms of the startFn arguments, reducing the use of anytype (eg. less
explicit casts when using comptime_int parameters, yay).
Sorry for the breakage.
Closes#8082
This introduces {'} to indicate escape for a single-quoted string,
and {} to indicate escape for a double quoted string.
Without this, there would be unnecessary \' inside double quoted
strings, and unnecessary \" inside single quoted strings.
Motivated by the llvm12 branch, in the new tool I am writing for
updating target CPU features.
This is an accident from a merge conflict introduced in
7edb204edfa41e11776ac009da5a20fb1c907f5f.
The new pipe2 code I believe is supposed to work for all posix-like
systems. If haiku needs special handling here, it should be
re-introduced.
* no isHaiku() function since there is not more than one os tag that
this applies to.
* clean up some control flow into a switch
* add some TODO comments to investigate panics that suspiciously look
like they should be compile errors (see #363)
Reverts bf642204b373e01314ecfb0c50a643dc4b05746f and uses a different
workaround, suggested by @LemonBoy.
There is either a compiler bug or a design flaw somewhere around here.
It does not have to block this branch, but I need to understand exactly
what's going on here and make it so that nobody ever has to run into
this problem again.
This regresses the test case of `zig fmt` deleting empty line comments.
Two open questions here:
* What should the rules be about deleting empty line comments?
It makes sense usually, but for array initization, empty line
comments cause a line break, affecting the row/column alignment.
Perhaps we should therefore respect all empty line comments?
Or should we special case array initializations?
* If we decide to special case some kinds of line comments to respect
them (which is status quo!), how should that be implemented?
I modified this test case to expect different results.
Now, the trailing comma on a list of struct fields is the only deciding
factor, not whether or not the field init expressions contain a newline.
