On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 04:44:31PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 04:13:24PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 03:32:39PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > Package: openssl > > > Version: 1.0.0d-2 > > > Severity: important > > > Tags: patch > > > User: [email protected] > > > Usertags: sparc64 > > > > > > openssl FTBFS on sparc64 with a testsuite failure. This is due to a > > > small configuration issue, fixed by the patch below. I changed > > > SIXTY_FOUR_BIT_LONG into BN_LLONG, as it is done for debian-sparc-v9 or > > > solaris64-sparc-v9. Could you please apply this patch in the next > > > upload. Thanks in advance. > > > > What is the size of a "long"? 64 bit? Then as far as I know you > > should use SIXTY_FOUR_BIT_LONG. > > Yes, the size of a long is 64 bit. If in this case SIXTY_FOUR_BIT_LONG > should be used, do you know why solaris64-sparcv9-gcc, > solaris64-sparcv9-cc, BSD-sparc64 and linux64-sparcv9 use BN_LLONG? > I basically did the change based on them, and it fixed the testsuite > issue.
BSD-sparc64 used to use SIXTY_FOUR_BIT_LONG, but doesn't anymore, and I don't know why. I have no idea why they make things so complicated with all those defines anyway. I think they have the same pieces of code using "long" or "long long" as variable instead of using a typedef or something. > > If long is 64 bit, as it is on most of our 64 bit ports, I would > > look into why it's failing instead. > > > > The problem is that test BN_add. I will try to investigate why. I have no idea why it should break other than a long is not 64 bit. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
