-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 820
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
ESP-IDFv5: Warning related to the uint32_t
definition change
#6029
Comments
+@gojimmypi FYI |
@llange thanks for the heads up. I've seen similar problems in the past. Could you please kindly double check the exact installed version you are using? I think the code you are referring to has been recently changed to use It appears there's a Note also there's reference to the gcc version. I've been testing wolfSSL for ESP-IDF v5 on both: I'm not currently able to reproduce this problem but I'll take a closer look soon. |
Hi @gojimmypi , you're right and I was mistaken when writing that it did occur in |
Hi @llange thanks for confirming; looks like #5902 missed the release by just a day, being merged on Dec 22; the 5.5.4 release was a day earlier on Dec 21. On the topic of ESP-IDF v5: although I have a v5 in my gcc 8.4 toolchain directory, and I thought it worked there, I believe I was mistaken. I am not able to get ESP-IDF v5 to work with gcc 8.4. I see this error:
It is probably best to use the recent gcc 11.2 toolchain anyhow. I cannot think of a reason to use the older one with ESP-IDF v5. Shall we close this issue? |
Hi @gojimmypi, |
Version
tag
v5.5.4-stable
ormaster
Description
Compiling OVMSv3 for ESP-IDF version 5+ (NOT using the component integration (https://github.com/espressif/esp-wolfssl/)) - like in #6024 , #6026
Also I'm targeting the ESP32 target (not ESP32-S3 etc...)
When building for ESP32, the compilation gives the following warning:
It's related to the change of definition of
uint32_t
type in the compiler (unsigned int
->unsigned long
).On those platforms,
word32
is defined asunsigned int
.Even if those have the same byte-size, the compiler distinguish between the 2 definitions and warns them as not compatible.
The following trivial patch seems to please the compiler:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: