(In reply to Andre Guerreiro from comment #76)
> Created attachment 118745 [details] [review]
> Incremental hashing + large file support
>
> With this patch I've implemented the incremental hashing plus the large file
> support.
>
> This is still untested with files larger than 2GB but is correct for all the
> regular test cases I gathered before.
Some minor suggestions:
* The naming of BLOCK_SIZE and block_len in hashSignedDataBlock seems misleading to me, maybe CHUNK_SIZE and block_len?
* The method hashSignedDataBlock could probably be replaced by a static function taking the stream and the handler? This should give the compiler more optimization possibilities than if it is visible in other translation units.
* I think the while loop within could become a for loop for better readability with the case reduced to computing the number of bytes to read instead of two separate calls to doGetChars and updateHash.
(In reply to Andre Guerreiro from comment #76)
> Created attachment 118745 [details] [review]
> Incremental hashing + large file support
>
> With this patch I've implemented the incremental hashing plus the large file
> support.
>
> This is still untested with files larger than 2GB but is correct for all the
> regular test cases I gathered before.
Some minor suggestions:
* The naming of BLOCK_SIZE and block_len in hashSignedDataBlock seems misleading to me, maybe CHUNK_SIZE and block_len?
* The method hashSignedDataBlock could probably be replaced by a static function taking the stream and the handler? This should give the compiler more optimization possibilities than if it is visible in other translation units.
* I think the while loop within could become a for loop for better readability with the case reduced to computing the number of bytes to read instead of two separate calls to doGetChars and updateHash.