-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix FTBFS on gcc 13 #44
Conversation
Summary: Like other versions before, gcc 13 moved some includes around and as a result <cstdint> is no longer transitively included [1]. Explicitly include it for uint{32,64}_t. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/porting_to.html#header-dep-changes Pull Request resolved: facebook#11118 Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D42711356 Pulled By: ajkr fbshipit-source-id: 5ea257b85b7017f40fd8fdbce965336da95c55b2 (cherry picked from commit 88edfbf)
It uses uint64_t and it comes from <cstdint> This is needed with GCC 13 and newer [1] [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-13/porting_to.html Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit 31012cd)
I don't think that format check is failing on the code introduced in this PR, so can I assume we ignore that? |
ping @cbodley @rzarzynski :-) |
bump! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For Reef this should be fine assuming we'll stick to the new RocksDB version. |
@rzarzynski @markhpc @aclamk any objections to merging this so we can unblock ceph/ceph#50438? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
there's a failing check that complains about code formatting. should this be a blocker, or can we go ahead and merge? afaik, the commits were taken directly from upstream rocksdb |
Yeah this was just lifted from upstream, also AFAICT the format check is failing on code unrelated to this PR |
i would love to see this merge so i can build ceph on fedora 38 |
@cbodley: merging this, so it should be possible to update the submodule in |
thanks @rzarzynski! would you like me to update the submodule? |
Feel free to bump it up, @cbodley! I can send a PR if you prefer. |
see ceph/ceph#51737 |
Note we fixed the rocksdb paths for ceph: s|([ab]/)|$1src/rocksdb/|g Upstream-ref: ceph/ceph#52119 Upstream-ref: ceph/rocksdb#44
Note we fixed the rocksdb paths for ceph: s|([ab]/)|$1src/rocksdb/|g Upstream-ref: ceph/ceph#52119 Upstream-ref: ceph/rocksdb#44
This applies the following two patches:
See ceph/ceph#50438 for further discussion.