On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:17:11AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Indeed, the logic was reversed. Please test updated patch in the other
> e-mail I just sent. Or wait a few days for it to be part of GnuTLS
> 2.7.x to test it in "real" code.
>
I've just tested with gnulib HEAD and it works fine.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 5/12/2009 7:22 PM:
>> New module 'alignof'.
>> * lib/alignof.h: New file.
>> * modules/alignof: New file.
I noticed you just pushed test-alignof.c. Should this file also check
'long double', and (where avai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 5/12/2009 7:22 PM:
> the special cases for AIX cc,xlc and HP-UX cc are not right in general.
> They are only right in the context of malloca.h.
So if I understand correctly, you are trading one set of portability
problems
In this commit:
> 2009-05-08 Bruno Haible
>
> New module 'alignof'.
> * lib/alignof.h: New file.
> * modules/alignof: New file.
> * lib/malloca.h: Include alignof.h.
> (sa_alignof): Remove macro.
> (sa_alignment_*): Use the alignof macro.
> * modules/ma
Bruno Haible writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> +#define _SS_PADSIZE (_SS_SIZE - (max (sizeof (sa_family_t), \
>> + alignof (__ss_aligntype)) \
>
> 'max' is not a predefined macro. I'm applying this fix:
Thanks.
/Simon
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> +#define _SS_PADSIZE (_SS_SIZE - (max (sizeof (sa_family_t), \
> + alignof (__ss_aligntype)) \
'max' is not a predefined macro. I'm applying this fix:
2009-05-08 Bruno Haible
* lib/sys_socket.in.h (_SS_PADSIZ
The test for sockaddr_storage failed incorrectly under mingw because the
HAVE_WS2TCPIP_H wasn't set. The patch below moves back the test of
ws2tcpip.h before the sockaddr_storage test.
There is something like a catch-22 here: to test for sockaddr_storage,
we need to test for ws2tcpip.h, but to te
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Bruno, I pushed the following trivial fix because I got 'make dist'
> failures.
Sigh, I should have tested more -- there is an automatic EXTRA_DIST
added, and the error I got was caused by other problems. I reverted the
patch. Sorry about the noise.
/Simon
Bruno, I pushed the following trivial fix because I got 'make dist'
failures.
/Simon
>From 0773c46ee42a43177fa958f2437a8c45e748cc06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Josefsson
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:06:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] modules/alignof (Makefile.am): Dist alignof.h.
---
ChangeLog
Bruno Haible writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Looks fine to me. If you push it, I can make sys_socket depend on it.
>
> Pushed.
Thanks. I have pushed the patch below.
/Simon
>From 014f60069ce88c16683c533813b2463771ac2d0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Josefsson
Date: Fri, 8 May 200
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Looks fine to me. If you push it, I can make sys_socket depend on it.
Pushed.
Bruno
Bruno Haible writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> +#define _SS_PADSIZE (_SS_SIZE - (max (sizeof (sa_family_t), \
>> + alignof (__ss_aligntype)) \
>> + + sizeof (__ss_aligntype)))
>
> Fine, except that 'alignof' is not
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> +#define _SS_PADSIZE (_SS_SIZE - (max (sizeof (sa_family_t), \
> + alignof (__ss_aligntype)) \
> + + sizeof (__ss_aligntype)))
Fine, except that 'alignof' is not a predefined macro. We have
"Tom G. Christensen" writes:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:12:31PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "Tom G. Christensen" writes:
>>
>> > I applied this patch and gave the result a whirl on the actual
>> > Solaris 2.6 system in question but it did not do what I expected it to
>> > do.
>> ...
>> >
Bruno Haible writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> +#define _SS_PADSIZE (_SS_SIZE - (2 * sizeof (__ss_aligntype)))
>
> If the goal is that sizeof (struct sockaddr_storage) == _SS_SIZE, then the
> formula is incorrect. It should be
> (_SS_SIZE - (max (sizeof (sa_family_t), alignof (__ss_alignt
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:44:57AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > +#define _SS_PADSIZE (_SS_SIZE - (2 * sizeof (__ss_aligntype)))
>
> If the goal is that sizeof (struct sockaddr_storage) == _SS_SIZE, then the
> formula is incorrect. It should be
> (_SS_SIZE - (max (s
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> +#define _SS_PADSIZE (_SS_SIZE - (2 * sizeof (__ss_aligntype)))
If the goal is that sizeof (struct sockaddr_storage) == _SS_SIZE, then the
formula is incorrect. It should be
(_SS_SIZE - (max (sizeof (sa_family_t), alignof (__ss_aligntype)) + sizeof
(__ss_aligntype))
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:12:31PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Tom G. Christensen" writes:
>
> > I applied this patch and gave the result a whirl on the actual
> > Solaris 2.6 system in question but it did not do what I expected it to
> > do.
> ...
> > I've dumped config.log and the buildlog
"Tom G. Christensen" writes:
> I applied this patch and gave the result a whirl on the actual
> Solaris 2.6 system in question but it did not do what I expected it to
> do.
...
> I've dumped config.log and the buildlog at http://jupiterrise.com/tmp
Thanks, it was a simple mistake. Please try ag
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 03:09:17PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> We got a report about sockaddr_storage on Solaris 2.6:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel/3524
>
> How about the patch below?
>
I applied this patch and gave the result a whirl on the actual
Sola
We got a report about sockaddr_storage on Solaris 2.6:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel/3524
How about the patch below?
I'm unsure about HAVE_STRUCT_SOCKADDR_STORAGE=1 but sockaddr_storage is
POSIX, so it seemed like a good default to assume it exists unless some
te
21 matches
Mail list logo
