Fix calls to crypto_secretbox_easy #76

TellowKrinkle · 2019-02-04T21:29:44Z

Fixes #75
I think we were doing the wrong thing the whole time, not sure why the compiler was okay with it before

I think we were doing the wrong thing the whole time, not sure why the compiler was okay with it before

TellowKrinkle · 2019-02-04T21:32:06Z

Actually I realized libsodium must have updated their signature to make secret const and that's what broke ours
Edit: no actually it's been const for the last 5 years, so yeah I'm not sure why it worked in the past
Edit 2: Oh it looks like it was some change in the Swift compiler that made it not want to take a mutating reference to a force-unwrapped variable, which seems like a bug but also we didn't need to have a mutating reference at all so I guess it doesn't matter

They're not required and make it look like things are modifiable even though they're not

Fix calls to crypto_secretbox_easy

e7a04e9

I think we were doing the wrong thing the whole time, not sure why the compiler was okay with it before

TellowKrinkle changed the base branch from master to development February 4, 2019 21:30

Don't & const pointers

bebe252

They're not required and make it look like things are modifiable even though they're not

nuclearace merged commit 691787a into nuclearace:development Feb 4, 2019

TellowKrinkle deleted the FixSecretboxEasy branch February 4, 2019 21:54

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix calls to crypto_secretbox_easy #76

Fix calls to crypto_secretbox_easy #76

TellowKrinkle commented Feb 4, 2019

TellowKrinkle commented Feb 4, 2019 •

edited

Loading

Fix calls to crypto_secretbox_easy #76

Fix calls to crypto_secretbox_easy #76

Conversation

TellowKrinkle commented Feb 4, 2019

TellowKrinkle commented Feb 4, 2019 • edited Loading

TellowKrinkle commented Feb 4, 2019 •

edited

Loading