[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Problem with int types persists on nettle 2.4 and gnutls 3.0.19 on S

From: Niels Möller
Subject: Re: Problem with int types persists on nettle 2.4 and gnutls 3.0.19 on Solaris 9 Sparc
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:37:05 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (usg-unix-v)

Dagobert Michelsen <address@hidden> writes:

> Sorry for the delay, I got distracted. I just tested the latest stdint.in.h 
> from gnulib
> master and gnutls 3.0.19 passes this stage now.


> However, I didn't change anything on the nettle includes and now get
> lots of warnings.

Are these warnings harmless? If so, I think this is good enough.

> Probably the gl_* definitions should not belong to the installed
> nettle headers?

They don't, they're defined in gnulib, and appear in the nettle-stdint.h
warnings because of gnulib's preprocessor macros.

In gnutls/gl/stdint.h:

  typedef signed char gl_int_fast8_t;
  #define int_fast8_t gl_int_fast8_t;

In nettle-stdint.h (included later in the compilation unit):

  typedef int8_t int_fast8_t;

>   CC     pkcs12_bag.lo
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 237: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: gl_int_fast8_t
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 238: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: gl_int_fast16_t
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 239: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: gl_int_fast32_t
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 241: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: int64_t
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 244: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: gl_uint_fast8_t
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 245: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: gl_uint_fast16_t
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 246: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: gl_uint_fast32_t
> "/opt/csw/include/nettle/nettle-stdint.h", line 248: warning: typedef 
> redeclared: uint64_t

I don't understand why you get "uint64_t" rather than "gl_uint64_t", it
seems gnulib handles this type (and int64_t) differently from the rest.
But if it works now, despite these warnings, I think we can consider
this problem solved. Do you agree?

(And then I also have the fix in nettle to avoid defining the
*int_fast*_t types at all, which you have tested previously and which
also solved the problem, right?)


Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]