I have been looking to fixing this when I saw the e-mail from Antonio
Using intrinsic mode is failing the “hash functions” test (#44),
which I suppose is better than never having being able to build.

 



On 6/13/17, 8:31 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Ben Pfaff" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    Normally, hash_finish() is declared as:
    static inline uint32_t hash_finish(uint32_t hash, uint32_t final)
    
    When __SSE4_2__ && __x86_64__, it is declared as:
    static inline uint32_t hash_finish(uint64_t hash, uint64_t final)
    
    A recent commit added an unneeded prototype in the first form, which caused
    an error due to the redeclaration of a different type when the second form
    was actually used.  This removes the prototype, fixing the problem.
    
    It may not be a great idea to have two different forms for this function,
    but it's long standing and so I don't want to change it immediately without
    proper consideration.
    
    Reported-by: "Fischetti, Antonio" <[email protected]>
    Fixes: 67702b79d845 ("hash: New helper functions for adding words in a 
buffer to a hash.")
    Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>
    ---
     lib/hash.h | 1 -
     1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
    
    diff --git a/lib/hash.h b/lib/hash.h
    index 7dffeaa9cacc..a642a1e97954 100644
    --- a/lib/hash.h
    +++ b/lib/hash.h
    @@ -92,7 +92,6 @@ static inline uint32_t mhash_finish(uint32_t hash)
     
     static inline uint32_t hash_add(uint32_t hash, uint32_t data);
     static inline uint32_t hash_add64(uint32_t hash, uint64_t data);
    -static inline uint32_t hash_finish(uint32_t hash, uint32_t final);
     
     static inline uint32_t hash_add_words(uint32_t, const uint32_t *, size_t);
     static inline uint32_t hash_add_words64(uint32_t, const uint64_t *, 
size_t);
    -- 
    2.10.2
    
    _______________________________________________
    dev mailing list
    [email protected]
    
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.openvswitch.org_mailman_listinfo_ovs-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=BVhFA09CGX7JQ5Ih-uZnsw&m=I31eLoUgkJs498Dx_N-zRLMemNQMUQon8J-2Cr8Wehk&s=A8aQngnjfcomJtsIQAQAEJTWG5Tja7XLlQ6G-iFNZEQ&e=
 
    







_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to