On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hmm, I see ... so we need an new condition.
>
> Is it ok to apply?
This version is OK if it bootstraps.
Thanks.
Ian
Hmm, I see ... so we need an new condition.
Is it ok to apply?
Thanks,
Kai
Index: md5.h
===
--- md5.h (Revision 195572)
+++ md5.h (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -40,6 +40,11 @@
# include
typedef u_int32_t md5_uint32;
typedef uin
Kai Tietz writes:
> Yes, this is a valid point. The (u)int??_t types aren't necessarily
> declared by including sys/types.h. So what's about the following
> patch. If stdint.h header is present, then we should include it and
> then we can assume that the (u)int??_t types are present.
This is
2013/1/30 Ian Lance Taylor :
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> this patch fixes for targets with sys/types.h the issue that wrong
>> assumptions about pointer-sizes are used.
>> Instead it uses uintptr_t/intptr_t.
>>
>> ChangeLog /include
>>
>> 2013-01-30 Kai Tietz
>>
>>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
> this patch fixes for targets with sys/types.h the issue that wrong
> assumptions about pointer-sizes are used.
> Instead it uses uintptr_t/intptr_t.
>
> ChangeLog /include
>
> 2013-01-30 Kai Tietz
>
> PR other/54620
> PR targ
Hi,
this patch fixes for targets with sys/types.h the issue that wrong
assumptions about pointer-sizes are used.
Instead it uses uintptr_t/intptr_t.
ChangeLog /include
2013-01-30 Kai Tietz
PR other/54620
PR target/39064
* md5.h: Include sys/types.h if HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H
