Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756896AbcLNVV6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:21:58 -0500 Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:38265 "EHLO frisell.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753117AbcLNVV4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:21:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201612150515.xggXiOp3%fengguang.wu@intel.com> References: <20161214184605.24006-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <201612150515.xggXiOp3%fengguang.wu@intel.com> From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:21:50 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function To: kbuild test robot Cc: kbuild-all@01.org, Netdev , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, LKML , Linux Crypto Mailing List , Jean-Philippe Aumasson , "Daniel J . Bernstein" , Linus Torvalds , Eric Biggers , David Laight Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 243 Lines: 11 Interesting. Evidently gcc 4.8 doesn't like my use of: enum siphash_lengths { SIPHASH24_KEY_LEN = 16, SIPHASH24_ALIGNMENT = 8 }; I'll convert this to the more boring: #define SIPHASH24_KEY_LEN 16 #define SIPHASH24_ALIGNMENT 8