[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2d64143c89227807e0bd1d9e4daebb9@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 02:55:51 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: new warnings when compiling unstable-jumbo
On 2 Dec, 2012, at 22:33 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Dec, 2012, at 17:53 , Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 26 Nov, 2012, at 5:39 , Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> I am seeing new warnings like,
>>>>
>>>> options.c:133: warning: integer constant is too large for ‘long’ type
>>>> options.c:133: warning: integer constant is too large for ‘long’ type
>>>>
>>>> ✗ gcc --version
>>>> gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5.1) 4.4.3
>>>>
>>>> ✗ uname -a
>>>> Linux bt 3.2.6 #1 SMP Fri Feb 17 10:40:05 EST 2012 i686 GNU/Linux
>>>
>>> I can't see why. Try checking sizeof(ARCH_WORD_64) for a start.
>>
>> I switched to GCC 4.7.2 and no longer get these warnings.
>
> It is still something that might need a fix. I get the warnings when building 32-bit OSX. I can't see why - opt_flags is typedefed to ARCH_WORD_64 and that one is in turn typedefed to unsigned long long on this system.
This is now fixed, by adding ULL to the definitions of the 64-bit options flags. Maybe I should also add ULL to the ones that only use the low 32 bits? I haven't done so.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
