[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: Re: [Help-gnutls] Problem building from git
From: |
Brad Hards |
Subject: |
Fwd: Re: [Help-gnutls] Problem building from git |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:07:00 +1000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.11.4 (Linux/2.6.29.5-191.fc11.x86_64; KDE/4.2.4; x86_64; ; ) |
On Monday 13 July 2009 17:50:01 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Brad Hards wrote:
> > On Monday 13 July 2009 16:39:30 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> >> This is quite strange. In my copy x509.h:780
> >> gnutls_x509_crq_get_extension_by_oid has argument 5 as unsigned int and
> >> not size_t*. Is it the same in your system?
> >
> > No, it isn't. I have:
> > int gnutls_x509_crq_get_extension_by_oid (gnutls_x509_crq_t crq,
> > const char *oid, int indx,
> > void *buf, size_t * sizeof_buf,
> > unsigned int *critical);
>
> Sorry didn't check correctly. Does the following patch solve the issue
> for you?
There was one missing & (see previous message), and a lot of other problems.
However the problems appear to mostly be one of two types:
1. Cases where we're using %d to print a ssize_t or size_t. That requires %zd
instead. I'm confident about my fixes for those.
2. Cases where we are passing an integer to a function that expects a pointer
(sometimes with, sometimes without a macro) to gnutls_transport_set_ptr().
This I'm less confident about, because (again) I'm not sure I understand the
intent. Perhaps the address-of operator needs to be in the macro? Perhaps the
macro needs to be used for the tests and examples as well?
There is something confusing (or confused) about tests/mini-eagain.c. It looks
a bit like a work-in-progress.
Patch attached (zipped to get under the 40K limit on the list). Please provide
review - I'm not very confident, and I got 9 out
of 39 test failures.
Brad
-------------------------------------------------------
gnutls-build-2009-07-13.patch.zip
Description: Zip archive
- Fwd: Re: [Help-gnutls] Problem building from git,
Brad Hards <=