The SHA-2 family has some exceptions, but they're all programmer errors
and should be documented as such. (Are the failure cases even
necessary?)
Change-Id: I00bd0a9450cff78d8caac479817fbd8d3de872b8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4953
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Use sized integer types rather than unsigned char/int/long. The latter
two are especially a mess as they're both used in lieu of uint32_t.
Sometimes the code just blindly uses unsigned long and sometimes it uses
unsigned int when an LP64 architecture would notice.
Change-Id: I4c5c6aaf82cfe9fe523435588d286726a7c43056
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4952
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is an initial cut at aarch64 support. I have only qemu to test it
however—hopefully hardware will be coming soon.
This also affects 32-bit ARM in that aarch64 chips can run 32-bit code
and we would like to be able to take advantage of the crypto operations
even in 32-bit mode. AES and GHASH should Just Work in this case: the
-armx.pl files can be built for either 32- or 64-bit mode based on the
flavour argument given to the Perl script.
SHA-1 and SHA-256 don't work like this however because they've never
support for multiple implementations, thus BoringSSL built for 32-bit
won't use the SHA instructions on an aarch64 chip.
No dedicated ChaCha20 or Poly1305 support yet.
Change-Id: Ib275bc4894a365c8ec7c42f4e91af6dba3bd686c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/2801
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Initial fork from f2d678e6e89b6508147086610e985d4e8416e867 (1.0.2 beta).
(This change contains substantial changes from the original and
effectively starts a new history.)
