On 14/02/18 10:58, Jakob Hirsch via Exim-dev wrote: > Anyway, I wonder why we need two base64 decoding functions. Sure, they
> serve different purposes, but the inner parts mostly do the same (apart
> from error handling). Shouldn't we consolidate this? > Any objections?
Consolidation is good, so long as we're assured that the definition
of the base-64 method being used in the two cases is the same.
I think there's more than one alphabet in common use, for different
purposes... But if this turns out to be the case, perhaps a merged
routine could handle either.
Some microbenchmarking wouldn't go amiss, along with the usual
regression testing.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
