Ring: Unable to build on latest MSVC 2017

Created on 29 Jun 2018 · 10Comments · Source: briansmith/ring

I recently updated my Visual Studio and now I am unable to build my project using Ring.

The following error message is printed repeatedly:

c:\users\pvdberg\.cargo\registry\src\github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823\ring-0.12.1\crypto\limbs\limbs.c(47) : error C2220: warning treated as error - no 'object' file generated
c:\users\pvdberg\.cargo\registry\src\github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823\ring-0.12.1\crypto\limbs\limbs.c(47) : warning C5045: Compiler will insert Spectre mitigation for memory load if /Qspectre switch specified
c:\users\pvdberg\.cargo\registry\src\github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823\ring-0.12.1\crypto\limbs\limbs.c(46) : note: index 'i' range checked by comparison on this line
c:\users\pvdberg\.cargo\registry\src\github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823\ring-0.12.1\crypto\limbs\limbs.c(47) : note: feeds call on this line
c:\users\pvdberg\.cargo\registry\src\github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823\ring-0.12.1\crypto\curve25519\curve25519.c(3510) : error C2220: warning treated as error - no 'object' file generated

...

Source

PvdBerg1998

All 10 comments

This looks like #648 which is fixed in ring 0.13.0-alpha4.

andrewtj on 29 Jun 2018

I tried switching to the current master branch, which gave the same error. I reverted to VS 2015.

PvdBerg1998 on 30 Jun 2018

Currently downstream crates using ring 0.12 is not usable under msvc target because of #648. Any chance to backport and release a 0.12.2 version?

crlf0710 on 5 Jul 2018

👍1

Same here. I believe #650 should be backported (cherry pick would be okay) to 0.12 as well.

Whilst one could use the following workaround to compile _ring_: set _CL_=-wd5045 before a build.

pravic on 10 Jul 2018

👍1

I assume a backport is unlikely given the position outlined in the README.

andrewtj on 10 Jul 2018

However 0.12 is still the latest version, no?

crlf0710 on 10 Jul 2018

@crlf0710 Even if you exclude the 0.13.0-alpha releases, master has moved well on and the README says "we don't maintain branches other than the master branch".

andrewtj on 10 Jul 2018

It was a mistake for me to keep labeling 0.13 "alpha." I'll thinking to just release 0.13 as-is now. I would personally use 0.13 whether it is labeled "alpha" or not.