> Excellent. I just pushed the fix to HEAD.
Thanks.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Excellent. I just pushed the fix to HEAD.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:54 PM Hal Murray wrote:
>
>
> dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> > Hal, try putting
> > #define _ANSI_SOURCE 1
> > #define _ISOC99_SOURCE 1
>
> ...
> [100%] Linking C executable demo
> [100%] Built target demo
> -bash-4.4$ make test
>
dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> Hal, try putting
> #define _ANSI_SOURCE 1
> #define _ISOC99_SOURCE 1
...
[100%] Linking C executable demo
[100%] Built target demo
-bash-4.4$ make test
Running tests...
Test project /home/murray/ntpsec/libaes_siv
Start 1: test
1/1 Test #1: test .
Hal, try putting
#define _ANSI_SOURCE 1
#define _ISOC99_SOURCE 1
at the very top of aes_siv.c and let me know if that fixes the build error.
Looks like the way is getting in is via
via via via
. But guards it with
#if defined(_NETBSD_SOURCE)
#include /* for quad_t, etc. */
#endif
while
Jason Azze via devel :
> I predict that ESR will ask me for an alternative approach. He won't
> like my recommendation. It's to use a feature or development branch
> for a change as big as the introduction of NTS.
Even if I liked using feature branches (and I don't; see
https://blog.ntpsec.org/20
It's exactly like I suspected: a system header is #defining bswap64 as
a macro, causing a syntax error in my local definition. This is a
upstream bug twice over. First, nothing should be giving you
if you don't ask for it. Second, the manpage clearly
states that bswap64 is a function, so it's unac
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> I've added a mandatory waf check for the libaes_siv library.
[snip]
> At some point it will probably be taken into OpenSSL and this separate
> dependency will go away.
Hmmm. I certainly understand why this is necessary to mov
> and what does it buy us?
Gary suggested it would allow a server to restrict its clients without having
to know their IP Address.
> How hard would it be to implement
Depends what "it" is.
If the spec is "signed by one of these (root) certs", that's probably only an
evening/weekend. Round
