From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92351 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2016 17:57:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 92151 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2016 17:57:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-vk0-f42.google.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=30ttsjOHyNCoB4yYM3NQKVTlc6954EX75ArxI1xISA8=; b=dxQgIzL3pFW3Xp9/nvsguBrfp/An5YUD0jUR/U2jLAnKTccoBqt0yM82R+U/nPLsmc TXj4SEQZd8GplGzQR5OJNVCnnpF1wBhcHIxts04etnAn5MHAOHXEUv844iykTq2QD8Mf IKOQ8YE8orgsx/CF/NMg1cJClGoewNXrCAaVbqBcOkxTE97GQwNCD+t8wbBIor6KISmG ForkBnXO26yuCmT4fgJjG3CeTyE5m+oMN7FEq4JHg32+0D2VpFEv1aGbCOmBetPFYkKN mX7+ycGosofLGkdaO8bSUqi8QapbCSl/1DIXlR62s62cuHXStNefl2JowXQzzagg9HSQ kIdw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfS7ArtmfVeXnxafM0ZyIb+xtisZaMhIzfSPAN6GeL5Gqk9d0z6qMNBw8fzOrevdj+R X-Received: by 10.31.170.7 with SMTP id t7mr1906858vke.6.1477677415434; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypt: Use internal names for the SHA-2 block functions To: Joseph Myers References: Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org From: Adhemerval Zanella Message-ID: <49a0f49e-b22c-2dd1-fa5b-bbad89e8aacb@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00557.txt.bz2 On 28/10/2016 15:09, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >> It should __sha256_process_block_generic here. Also, if we now aiming >> for namespace clean shouldn't we also add a conform test for crypt.h >> header? > > crypt.h is not in any standard supported by the conform tests. > > It's true that linknamespace considerations apply even for _DEFAULT_SOURCE > and _GNU_SOURCE - using a function declared under one of those conditions > should not bring in a reference to a function not so declared. The > difficulty in testing this is that it really needs a list of all installed > headers to be visible in one place (and there's the question of whether we > consider _DEFAULT_SOURCE to include all headers or not). > Right, but how hard would to add a rule in conform to tests for glibc specific headers (conformtest-headers-GLIBC or conformtest-headers-GNU) and at first add the crypt.h plus _GNU_SOURCE?