26.0b3 builds fine, 26.0b5 fails with: /usr/obj/ports/firefox-26.0beta5/mozilla-beta/security/manager/ssl/src/nsNSSIOLayer.cpp:691:22: error: 'max' is not a member of 'std' (with gcc 4.6/libstdc++ 4.6) mozilla-beta/security/manager/ssl/src/nsNSSIOLayer.cpp:691:27: error: no member named 'max' in namespace 'std' (with clang 3.3/libstdc++ 4.2) http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/83e55c91aa80 added std::max use but didnt change the includes. I dont know why it surfaces only on OpenBSD (and apparently not on my buildbot setup on aurora & central) but not the tier1 platforms, but slapping #include <algorithm> at the top of security/manager/ssl/src/nsNSSIOLayer.cpp fixes the issue for me. Would it be an acceptable change for all branches to beta ? Does windows ship <algorithm> in their implem of libstdc++ ?
Looking at $(CC) -E output on m-c the header is bootlegged as algorithm BaseRect.h Rect.h Units.h since bug 910322 (ff26) nsContentUtils.h since bug 898712 (ff27) nsNSSIOLayer.cpp and there is also SPS vector (N/A for Linux/PPC, BSDs, Solaris) algorithm GeckoProfilerImpl.h GeckoProfiler.h StartupTimeline.h Telemetry.h nsNSSIOLayer.cpp
Summary: use of std::max require including <algorithm> after bug 839310 → use of std::max require including <algorithm> after bug 839310 (non-SPS)
Which is more safe: add explicit <algorithm> or backport bug 898712 ?
Attachment #8333576 - Flags: review?(brian)
Comment on attachment 8333576 [details] [diff] [review] include fix Review of attachment 8333576 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you!
Attachment #8333576 - Flags: review?(brian) → review+
Comment on attachment 8333576 [details] [diff] [review] include fix [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): bug 839310 User impact if declined: failure to build on non-SPS platforms Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): just landed on inbound, but fixes the build of 26.0b5 Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): NPOTB
Comment on attachment 8333576 [details] [diff] [review] include fix technically a=NPTOB, but approving here to make sure this gets uplift.
Assignee: nobody → landry
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla28
Landry, can you please verify this is fixed in Firefox 26, 27 and 28?
26.0 built fine for me, and 27 & 28 too (since this was fixed in 26, no reason it would have regressed on that particular issue).
Thanks for the help, Landry.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.