Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:41:46 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 209097] security/hpenc: Fix build with libc++ 3.8.0 Message-ID: <bug-209097-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D209097 Bug ID: 209097 Summary: security/hpenc: Fix build with libc++ 3.8.0 Product: Ports & Packages Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: Individual Port(s) Assignee: vsevolod@FreeBSD.org Reporter: dim@FreeBSD.org Flags: maintainer-feedback?(vsevolod@FreeBSD.org) Assignee: vsevolod@FreeBSD.org Created attachment 169757 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D169757&action= =3Dedit Don't declare max_align_t if libc++'s stddef.h already did it During the exp-run in bug 208158, it was found that security/hpenc gives er= rors with libc++ 3.8.0 [1]: In file included from aead.cc:29: In file included from ./aead.h:29: ./common.h:37:3: error: typedef redefinition with different types ('struct max_align_t' vs 'long double') } max_align_t; ^ /usr/include/c++/v1/stddef.h:57:21: note: previous definition is here typedef long double max_align_t; ^ If __CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED is not defined, libc++'s new stddef.h also declares max_align_t, and this conflicts with the max_align_t declaration in common.h. There is already an "Ugly, ugly hack" part in common.h, which unfortunately must now be made even uglier, as in the attached patch. This adds a !defined(_LIBCPP_STDDEF_H) to detect whether libc++'s stddef.h was included. [1] http://package18.nyi.freebsd.org/data/headamd64PR208158-default/2016-03-22_= 18h30m05s/logs/errors/hpenc-2.0_1.log --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-209097-13>