[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] fate: replace custom md5 tests with those from RFC 1321

[James Almer]

On 11/3/2015 4:44 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:09:43AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  libavutil/md5.c    | 23 ++++++++++-------------
>>  tests/ref/fate/md5 | 12 +++++++-----
>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/libavutil/md5.c b/libavutil/md5.c
>> index 876bd55..2a77304 100644
>> --- a/libavutil/md5.c
>> +++ b/libavutil/md5.c
>> @@ -217,19 +217,16 @@ static void print_md5(uint8_t *md5)
>>  
>>  int main(void){
>>      uint8_t md5val[16];
>> -    int i;
>> -    volatile uint8_t in[1000]; // volatile to workaround http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20849
>> -    // FIXME remove volatile once it has been fixed and all fate clients are updated
>> -
>> -    for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
>> -        in[i] = i * i;
>> -    av_md5_sum(md5val, in, 1000); print_md5(md5val);
>> -    av_md5_sum(md5val, in,   63); print_md5(md5val);
>> -    av_md5_sum(md5val, in,   64); print_md5(md5val);
>> -    av_md5_sum(md5val, in,   65); print_md5(md5val);
>> -    for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
>> -        in[i] = i % 127;
>> -    av_md5_sum(md5val, in,  999); print_md5(md5val);
>> +
>> +    av_md5_sum(md5val, "",    0); print_md5(md5val);
>> +    av_md5_sum(md5val, "a",   1); print_md5(md5val);
>> +    av_md5_sum(md5val, "abc", 3); print_md5(md5val);
>> +    av_md5_sum(md5val, "message digest",             14); print_md5(md5val);
>> +    av_md5_sum(md5val, "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz", 26); print_md5(md5val);
>> +    av_md5_sum(md5val, "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcde"
>> +                       "fghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789",          62); print_md5(md5val);
>> +    av_md5_sum(md5val, "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890"
>> +                       "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890", 80); print_md5(md5val);
> 
> Is it really OK to only test ASCII?

I don't see why not. We're doing that for every other hash algorithm as described
in their respective RFCs for that matter.