On Friday, 14 August 2026 10:02:48 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Thursday, 13 August 2026 15:38:38 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > On Tuesday, 11 August 2026 11:19:03 CEST Pranav P wrote: [...] > > Hi Pranav, > > > > thanks for pointing this out and for the patch. > > > > I made a quick test with QEMU s390x user mode emulation and was able to > > reproduce these BE issues. > > > > Give me some time. I am thinking about a cleaner approach to fix these. > > I have split your fixes up into separate commits. > > For the following fixes I chose a different, cleaner approach: > > https://svn.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revision&revision=4651 > https://svn.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revision&revision=4652 > > For the following fix I picked your solution, just brought back comments > that your dropped: > > https://svn.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revision&revision=4653 > > All existing tests already pass for s390x here for me. However there is > still one fix in your patch that I have not addressed in SVN yet: your BE > changes for calling __calculateCRC(). How did you hit this issue, given > that all tests already succeed for me with current SVN r4653?
And the last issue from your patch is now fixed with different approach by: https://svn.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revision&revision=4656 https://svn.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revision&revision=4660 I guarded this BE issue with a new test case that bypasses the libgig API to avoid the bug being masked, which was the reason why the tests passed even without this fix applied. I consider your reported BE issues being fixed now. Otherwise let me know. Thanks! /Christian _______________________________________________ Linuxsampler-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
