Re: [PATCH] sha1dc: safeguard against outside definitions of BIGENDIAN

Johannes Schindelin writes: >> So here is what I came up with as a replacement (this time as a >> proper patch not a comment on a patch). >> >> Dscho, could you see if this fixes your build? > > The Continuous Testing is back to normal, thanks. Thanks for a quick

Re: [PATCH] sha1dc: safeguard against outside definitions of BIGENDIAN

Hi Junio, On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Which leads me to wonder if a more robust solution that is in line > > with the original design of sha1dc/sha1.c code may be to do an > > unconditional "#undef BIGENDIAN" before the above

Re: [PATCH] sha1dc: safeguard against outside definitions of BIGENDIAN

Junio C Hamano writes: > Which leads me to wonder if a more robust solution that is in line > with the original design of sha1dc/sha1.c code may be to do an > unconditional "#undef BIGENDIAN" before the above block, so that no > matter what the calling environment sets

Re: [PATCH] sha1dc: safeguard against outside definitions of BIGENDIAN

Johannes Schindelin writes: > diff --git a/sha1dc/sha1.c b/sha1dc/sha1.c > index 6dd0da36084..d99db4f2e1b 100644 > --- a/sha1dc/sha1.c > +++ b/sha1dc/sha1.c > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ > > #define sha1_mix(W, t) (rotate_left(W[t - 3] ^ W[t - 8] ^ W[t - 14] ^ W[t - > 16],

[PATCH] sha1dc: safeguard against outside definitions of BIGENDIAN

In sha1dc/sha1.c, we #define BIGENDIAN under certain circumstances, and obviously leave the door open for scenarios where our conditions do not catch and that constant is #defined elsewhere. However, we did not expect that anybody would possibly #define BIGENDIAN to 0, indicating that the current