linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] test/hash: Fix warning in preprocessor symbol evaluation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:45:13 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] test/hash: Fix warning in preprocessor symbol evaluation

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:54:15 PM CEST Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>
> 
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > Some versions of gcc don't like tests for the value of an undefined
> > preprocessor symbol, even in the #else branch of an #ifndef:
> 
> Damn, I had hoped that would work universally; I tried to avoid the
> uglier #if-inside-#ifdef construction.  GCC 6 is quite happy wth it.
> 
> But no objections.
> 
> If you want:
> Acked-by: George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>
> 
> But here's an alternative.  Geert, what do you think of this?
> Acked-by: George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>

I picked the wrong patch from patchwork, I meant to get
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9139839/ instead, sorry
for the mixup. I originally had my own patch in the series
and then replaced it with Geert's before sending it out,
but got the wrong url.

	Arnd