Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-26 Thread intrigeri 
Hi,

Adam Conrad wrote (23 Mar 2014 20:03:12 GMT) :
 Not fixing a bug isn't the way to get rid of it.

I agree. My wording was not appropriate, and I'm sorry for the bad
feelings I may have caused.

Hoping to clarify a bit:

 1. I'll try to go on playing the intermediate between the relevant
parties (upstream and the Debian porters) and pinging people as
needed, as I've been doing in the last 2.5 months. But if I cause
communication problems again, then I'll ask for someone else on
the Perl team to take over this task from me.

 2. I want Jessie to be released with this package (and its
reverse-dependencies) working on as many supported architectures
as possible. Given I don't have the skills needed to port it to
big-endian 64-bit architectures myself, all I can do is #1. So,
whether Jessie ships this package on these architectures does not
depend much on me.

Cheers,
-- 
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-26 Thread Niko Tyni 
clone 724469 -1
retitle -1 libglib-object-introspection-perl: FTBFS on 64-bit big-endian 
architectures
severity -1 important
found -1 0.020-2
close 724469 0.020-2
thanks

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:00:19PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
 intrigeri wrote (26 Mar 2014 11:25:38 GMT) :
   2. I want Jessie to be released with this package (and its
  reverse-dependencies) working on as many supported architectures
  as possible. Given I don't have the skills needed to port it to
  big-endian 64-bit architectures myself, all I can do is #1. So,
  whether Jessie ships this package on these architectures does not
  depend much on me.
 
 ... and I would like to have opinions about what is an appropriate
 timing for dropping a target architecture for a given package, when
 nobody comes up with a patch to port the code to that architecture.

libglib-object-introspection-perl has never been built on s390x,
which is the only 64-bit big endian release architecture AFAIK.
So this issue isn't release critical anymore now that 32-bit big
endian architectures work (starting from 0.020-2).

Cloning a separate bug for the 64-bit part and closing the RC one.

No need to 'drop a target architecture' AIUI: no old binaries need
to be removed and 64-bit BE autobuilders can keep trying until
the issue is fixed.
-- 
Niko Tyni   nt...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-23 Thread intrigeri 
Hi,

Lennart Sorensen wrote (22 Mar 2014 12:31:00 GMT) :
 Patch works for powerpc and someone else already reported it working
 for powerpcspe.

Adam Conrad wrote (22 Mar 2014 16:20:23 GMT) :
 Works fine for me on powerpc,

Thanks a lot for testing!

I've uploaded libglib-object-introspection-perl 0.020-2 with this
patch applied. This should at least fix the problem for 32-bit
big-endian architectures.

Any s390x porter planning to work on this? (And if so, ETA?)

I'd rather not drop s390x from the list of architectures this package
is built for, but this RC bug has now been around for 6 months, and at
some point I'll want to get rid of it.

Cheers,
-- 
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-23 Thread Bastian Blank 
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
 Any s390x porter planning to work on this? (And if so, ETA?)

Care to share the results of your own findings?  You know where the
problem is located and you obviously know zelenka.d.o.

Bastian

-- 
Power is danger.
-- The Centurion, Balance of Terror, stardate 1709.2


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-23 Thread intrigeri 
Hi,

Bastian Blank wrote (23 Mar 2014 10:04:34 GMT) :
 Care to share the results of your own findings?

Unfortunately, I don't have the skills needed to work on this problem
myself, so there is no such thing to share. The best I can do is to go
on forwarding patches and test results between upstream and
Debian porters.

Cheers,
-- 
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-23 Thread Hiroyuki Yamamoto 
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:53:23AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
 intrigeri wrote (20 Jan 2014 17:58:03 GMT) :
 https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552
 Sure. Debian porters, I'll let you subscribe to the RT ticket, and
 hopefully take care of this porting problem.

 I'd like to see this RC bug fixed eventually, and I still hope this
 can be done without dropping support for too many architectures in
 this package.

 AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has
 been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been
 waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this
 on other big-endian architectures?

 It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones.

 [1] 
 https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch
 
 Patch works for powerpc and someone else already reported it working
 for powerpcspe.
 
 As expected it does NOT work on ppc64.  I am not currently awake enough
 to try and figure out why.
 
 Since mips was already tested with the patch originally, that probably
 just leaves sparc and s390 to test (I can't tell if s390 tested it or not,
 only that s390x does not work yet due to being 64bit).


On ppc64, failing to build the source package patched was confirmed.

--

make[1]: Leaving directory `/«PKGBUILDDIR»'
   dh_auto_test -a
make[1]: Entering directory `/«PKGBUILDDIR»'
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=:build PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl 
-MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch') t/*.t
t/00-basic-types.t  ok
t/arg-checks.t  ok

#   Failed test at t/arrays.t line 14.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '6'
t/arrays.t  
Failed 28/29 subtests 
t/boxed.t . ok
t/cairo-integration.t . ok

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 14.
#  got: '-40706304'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 16.
#  got: '7395392'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 17.
#  got: '7395392'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 18.
#  got: '-33534596'
# expected: '46'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 22.
#  got: '7171660'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 26.
#  got: '-40706256'
# expected: '23'
# Looks like you failed 6 tests of 25.
t/callbacks.t . 
Dubious, test returned 6 (wstat 1536, 0x600)
Failed 6/25 subtests 
t/closures.t .. ok
t/constants.t . ok
t/enums.t . 
Failed 3/4 subtests 
t/hashes.t  ok
t/interface-implementation.t .. ok
t/objects.t ... ok
t/structs.t ... ok
t/values.t  ok
t/vfunc-chaining.t  ok
t/vfunc-ref-counting.t  ok
Failed 3/16 test programs. 7/299 subtests failed.

Test Summary Report
---
t/arrays.t  (Wstat: 9 Tests: 2 Failed: 1)
  Failed test:  2
  Non-zero wait status: 9
  Parse errors: Bad plan.  You planned 29 tests but ran 2.
t/callbacks.t   (Wstat: 1536 Tests: 25 Failed: 6)
  Failed tests:  3, 6, 9, 14, 19, 25
  Non-zero exit status: 6
t/enums.t   (Wstat: 11 Tests: 1 Failed: 0)
  Non-zero wait status: 11
  Parse errors: Bad plan.  You planned 4 tests but ran 1.
Files=16, Tests=299, 835 wallclock secs ( 0.25 usr  0.09 sys + 74.57 cusr 19.01 
csys = 93.92 CPU)
Result: FAIL
make[1]: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255
make[1]: Leaving directory `/«PKGBUILDDIR»'
dh_auto_test: make -j1 test returned exit code 2
make: *** [build-arch] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build-arch gave error exit status 2

Build finished at 20140323-1923

Finished


-- 
Hiroyuki Yamamoto
A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA  91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-23 Thread Adam Conrad 
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
 
 I'd rather not drop s390x from the list of architectures this package
 is built for, but this RC bug has now been around for 6 months, and at
 some point I'll want to get rid of it.

Not fixing a bug isn't the way to get rid of it.  This isn't s390x
specific, it's incorrect code leading to failure on 64-bit BE arches,
of which there are several, it just happens that s390x is the only
officially-supported one.

I understand that you personally may not have the skills to fix it,
and need input from either a porter or upstream, but that doesn't mean
the bug magically doesn't exist if no one gives you a patch to fix it.

... Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-22 Thread intrigeri 
Hi,

intrigeri wrote (20 Jan 2014 17:58:03 GMT) :
 https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552
 Sure. Debian porters, I'll let you subscribe to the RT ticket, and
 hopefully take care of this porting problem.

I'd like to see this RC bug fixed eventually, and I still hope this
can be done without dropping support for too many architectures in
this package.

AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has
been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been
waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this
on other big-endian architectures?

It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones.

[1] 
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch

Thanks in advance!

Cheers,
--
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-22 Thread Lennart Sorensen 
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:53:23AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
 intrigeri wrote (20 Jan 2014 17:58:03 GMT) :
  https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552
  Sure. Debian porters, I'll let you subscribe to the RT ticket, and
  hopefully take care of this porting problem.
 
 I'd like to see this RC bug fixed eventually, and I still hope this
 can be done without dropping support for too many architectures in
 this package.
 
 AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has
 been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been
 waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this
 on other big-endian architectures?
 
 It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones.
 
 [1] 
 https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch

Patch works for powerpc and someone else already reported it working
for powerpcspe.

As expected it does NOT work on ppc64.  I am not currently awake enough
to try and figure out why.

Since mips was already tested with the patch originally, that probably
just leaves sparc and s390 to test (I can't tell if s390 tested it or not,
only that s390x does not work yet due to being 64bit).

-- 
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-03-22 Thread Adam Conrad 
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:53:23AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
 
 AFAICT the latest patch proposed by upstream on February 9 [1] has
 been tested on mips only. My understanding is that upstream has been
 waiting for more test results since then. Can anyone please test this
 on other big-endian architectures?
 
 It would good if we could at least fix this for the 32-bit ones.
 
 [1] 
 https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/1324475/702426/0001-Fix-return-value-handling-on-big-endian-architecture.patch

Works fine for me on powerpc, but fails miserably on s390x:

t/00-basic-types.t  ok 
t/arg-checks.t  ok   
t/arrays.t  1/29 
#   Failed test at t/arrays.t line 14.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '6'
Out of memory!
# Looks like you planned 29 tests but ran 2.
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 2 run.
# Looks like your test exited with 1 just after 2.
t/arrays.t  Failed 28/29 subtests 
t/boxed.t . ok 
t/cairo-integration.t . ok   
t/callbacks.t . 1/25 
#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 14.
#  got: '6941192'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 16.
#  got: '894'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 17.
#  got: '894'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 18.
#  got: '-1071533088'
# expected: '46'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 22.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '23'

#   Failed test at t/callbacks.t line 26.
#  got: '-1071861040'
# expected: '23'
# Looks like you failed 6 tests of 25.
t/callbacks.t . Dubious, test returned 6 (wstat 1536, 0x600)
Failed 6/25 subtests 
t/closures.t .. ok   
t/constants.t . ok   
t/enums.t . Failed 3/4 subtests 
t/hashes.t  ok   
t/interface-implementation.t .. ok   
t/objects.t ... ok 
t/structs.t ... ok   
t/values.t  ok   
t/vfunc-chaining.t  ok 
t/vfunc-ref-counting.t  ok 

Test Summary Report
---
t/arrays.t  (Wstat: 9 Tests: 2 Failed: 1)
  Failed test:  2
  Non-zero wait status: 9
  Parse errors: Bad plan.  You planned 29 tests but ran 2.
t/callbacks.t   (Wstat: 1536 Tests: 25 Failed: 6)
  Failed tests:  3, 6, 9, 14, 19, 25
  Non-zero exit status: 6
t/enums.t   (Wstat: 11 Tests: 1 Failed: 0)
  Non-zero wait status: 11
  Parse errors: Bad plan.  You planned 4 tests but ran 1.
Files=16, Tests=297, 222 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr  0.03 sys + 11.27 cusr 39.60 
csys = 50.97 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Failed 3/16 test programs. 7/297 subtests failed.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-01-20 Thread intrigeri 
Brian Manning wrote (17 Jan 2014 19:03:10 GMT) :
 Roderich Schupp updated the ticket [1] with comments about the patch
 this morning.

 Maybe the discussion about this patch and other fixes for this issue
 could be moved to the RT ticket?
[...]
 [1] https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552

Sure. Debian porters, I'll let you subscribe to the RT ticket, and
hopefully take care of this porting problem.

Cheers,
-- 
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-01-17 Thread Brian Manning 
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM, intrigeri intrig...@debian.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Brian Manning wrote (16 Jan 2014 16:43:09 GMT) :
 There's already a bug in RT for this, with a patch, and a similar
 statement about 64-bit big endian architectures;

 Thanks for the pointer, and sorry for not having looked at RT first.

 I haven't checked to see if the two patches are the same, but it
 sounds like they may be.

 I confirm the patches are the same.

Roderich Schupp updated the ticket [1] with comments about the patch
this morning.

Maybe the discussion about this patch and other fixes for this issue
could be moved to the RT ticket?  I don't want to squelch the
discussion on the list, but It sounds like most of the discussion is
taking place in the RT ticket already, it would be nice if everyone
who is interested in this issue was in one place to discuss it.
People on the list who are interested in this issue can follow along
as desired.

Thanks,

Brian

[1] https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: Fwd: Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-01-16 Thread intrigeri 
Hi,

since 0.015, some of the Glib-Object-Introspection tests fail on all
big-endian architectures supported by Debian.

I am attaching the original bug report. More info can be found at
http://bugs.debian.org/724469, including a patch that apparently fixes
the problem on 32-bit big endian architectures:

  
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=12;filename=gperl-i11n-invoke-c_big_endian_32.patch;att=1;bug=724469

The patch author says that more work will be needed for 64-bit big
endian architectures.

Is upstream interested in supporting these architectures, or is
the ball in the Debian porters' court?

---BeginMessage---
Package: libglib-object-introspection-perl
Version: 0.015-1
Severity: important

libglib-object-introspection-perl fails to build on all big-endian
architectures with the following test failures:

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 15.
#  got: '-1'
# expected: '-127'

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 16.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '255'

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 17.
#  got: '-1'
# expected: '-32767'

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 18.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '65535'
# Looks like you failed 4 tests of 34.
t/00-basic-types.t  
Dubious, test returned 4 (wstat 1024, 0x400)
Failed 4/34 subtests 

#   Failed test at t/arg-checks.t line 11.
#  got: '-1'
# expected: '-127'

#   Failed test at t/arg-checks.t line 21.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '127'
# Looks like you failed 2 tests of 5.
t/arg-checks.t  
Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
Failed 2/5 subtests

Given both the nature of the results of the tests, and the selection of
architectures where the failures happen, it's fairly clearly an endian
issue, though I haven't looked into where.  More logs can be found at:

https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libglib-object-introspection-perl

... Adam

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers saucy-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'saucy-updates'), (500, 'saucy-security'), (500, 'saucy')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.11.0-8-generic (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

---End Message---


-- 
  intrigeri

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-01-16 Thread Brian Manning 
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:18 AM, intrigeri intrigeri+deb...@boum.org wrote:
 Hi,

 since 0.015, some of the Glib-Object-Introspection tests fail on all
 big-endian architectures supported by Debian.

 I am attaching the original bug report. More info can be found at
 http://bugs.debian.org/724469, including a patch that apparently fixes
 the problem on 32-bit big endian architectures:

   
 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=12;filename=gperl-i11n-invoke-c_big_endian_32.patch;att=1;bug=724469

 The patch author says that more work will be needed for 64-bit big
 endian architectures.

 Is upstream interested in supporting these architectures, or is
 the ball in the Debian porters' court?

There's already a bug in RT for this, with a patch, and a similar
statement about 64-bit big endian architectures; I haven't checked to
see if the two patches are the same, but it sounds like they may be.

https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=89552

I would say whoever fixes it first, everybody wins.

Thanks,

Brian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-01-16 Thread intrigeri 
Hi,

Brian Manning wrote (16 Jan 2014 16:43:09 GMT) :
 There's already a bug in RT for this, with a patch, and a similar
 statement about 64-bit big endian architectures;

Thanks for the pointer, and sorry for not having looked at RT first.

 I haven't checked to see if the two patches are the same, but it
 sounds like they may be.

I confirm the patches are the same.

Cheers,
-- 
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-01-11 Thread intrigeri 
Roland Stigge wrote (09 Jan 2014 08:37:00 GMT) :
 Patch works on powerpcspe, thanks!

Thanks everyone for the report, the patch and the testing.
I'll forward this upstream soonish.

Cheers,
--
  intrigeri
  | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
  | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2014-01-09 Thread Roland Stigge 
Patch works on powerpcspe, thanks!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2013-11-21 Thread Jurica Stanojkovic 
Hello,

I have attached a patch resolving reported issue on mips architecture.
We believe that this fix will work also on other 32-bit big endian 
architectures, but additional work will be needed for 64-bit big endian.
Could someone, please test this patch on other big endian architectures.

Best regards,
Jurica
Description: patch resolve issues on mips big endian architecture.
Author: Jurica Stanojkovic jurica.stanojko...@imgtec.com
--- libglib-object-introspection-perl-0.016.orig/gperl-i11n-invoke-c.c
+++ libglib-object-introspection-perl-0.016/gperl-i11n-invoke-c.c
@@ -180,7 +180,32 @@ invoke_c_code (GICallableInfo *info,
 		ccroak (Could not prepare a call interface);
 	}
 
-	ffi_call (cif, func_pointer, return_value, iinfo.args);
+	if(iinfo.return_type_ffi==ffi_type_sint8)
+	{
+		ffi_sarg result;
+		ffi_call (cif, func_pointer, result, iinfo.args);
+		return_value.v_int8=result;
+	}
+	else if(iinfo.return_type_ffi==ffi_type_uint8)
+	{
+		ffi_arg result;
+		ffi_call (cif, func_pointer, result, iinfo.args);
+		return_value.v_uint8=result;
+	}
+	else if(iinfo.return_type_ffi==ffi_type_sint16)
+	{
+		ffi_sarg result;
+		ffi_call (cif, func_pointer, result, iinfo.args);
+		return_value.v_int16=result;
+	}
+	else if(iinfo.return_type_ffi==ffi_type_uint16)
+	{
+		ffi_arg result;
+		ffi_call (cif, func_pointer, result, iinfo.args);
+		return_value.v_uint16=result;
+	}
+else
+		ffi_call (cif, func_pointer, return_value, iinfo.args);
 
 	/* free call-scoped data */
 	_invoke_free_after_call_handlers (iinfo);

Bug#724469: FTBFS on all big-endian architectures

2013-09-23 Thread Adam Conrad 
Package: libglib-object-introspection-perl
Version: 0.015-1
Severity: important

libglib-object-introspection-perl fails to build on all big-endian
architectures with the following test failures:

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 15.
#  got: '-1'
# expected: '-127'

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 16.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '255'

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 17.
#  got: '-1'
# expected: '-32767'

#   Failed test at t/00-basic-types.t line 18.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '65535'
# Looks like you failed 4 tests of 34.
t/00-basic-types.t  
Dubious, test returned 4 (wstat 1024, 0x400)
Failed 4/34 subtests 

#   Failed test at t/arg-checks.t line 11.
#  got: '-1'
# expected: '-127'

#   Failed test at t/arg-checks.t line 21.
#  got: '0'
# expected: '127'
# Looks like you failed 2 tests of 5.
t/arg-checks.t  
Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
Failed 2/5 subtests

Given both the nature of the results of the tests, and the selection of
architectures where the failures happen, it's fairly clearly an endian
issue, though I haven't looked into where.  More logs can be found at:

https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libglib-object-introspection-perl

... Adam

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers saucy-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'saucy-updates'), (500, 'saucy-security'), (500, 'saucy')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.11.0-8-generic (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org