[PATCH 25/43] Hack on the newly imported X25519 and X448 code.

[Ian Jackson]

Mark Wooding writes ("Re: [PATCH 25/43] Hack on the newly imported X25519 and X448 code."):
> Yes.  I've had another go at this, taking a different approach.  There's
> still a lot of pure deletion, but I'm pretty sure we'll never want the
> stuff I've deleted, and code which doesn't exist can't have bugs in.
> I've preserved the formatting, and this time I've left in stuff which we
> don't need now but might want later (though I've ifdeffed it out because
> it won't build without some more support machinery).

Feel free to #ifdef out the pure deletion.

> The diff is still rather heavy, but most of it is the test vectors.  I
> don't have a good answer for them: upstream has some elaborate machinery
> for parsing them which I really don't want to reproduce here, even in
> Perl or something.  Indeed, I liked the idea so little that I prepared
> the replacement test vector files by hand.

Urgh.  Maybe if the test vectors change, we do want a merge conflict
then.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.