Source: libfshfs
Version: 20201104-1
Severity: normal 
Tags: ftbfs patch upstream
User: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: riscv64

Hi,

fails to build on riscv64:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libfshfs&arch=riscv64&ver=20201104-1&stamp=1607268197&raw=0

This is due to fundamentally broken tests assuming that memcpy and
memset can fail returning NULL, and interposing these libc functions in
the tests with functions that sometimes return NULL. This tests should
be simply removed as they do not make sense. See bug #978433 for more
details as the same code is basically replicated in dozen of packages.

A simpler way to fix the issue for riscv64 is to disable all memory
tests on this architecture, as it is already done for a long list of
cases. This is what the patch below does:

--- libfshfs-20201104/debian/patches/01-disable-memory-tests-on-riscv64.patch   
1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ libfshfs-20201104/debian/patches/01-disable-memory-tests-on-riscv64.patch   
2020-12-27 14:51:11.000000000 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+--- libfshfs-20201104.orig/tests/fshfs_test_memory.h
++++ libfshfs-20201104/tests/fshfs_test_memory.h
+@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
+ extern "C" {
+ #endif
+ 
+-#if defined( HAVE_GNU_DL_DLSYM ) && defined( __GNUC__ ) && !defined( 
LIBFSHFS_DLL_IMPORT ) && !defined( __arm__ ) && !defined( __clang__ ) && 
!defined( __CYGWIN__ ) && !defined( __hppa__ ) && !defined( __mips__ ) && 
!defined( __sparc__ ) && !defined( HAVE_ASAN )
++#if defined( HAVE_GNU_DL_DLSYM ) && defined( __GNUC__ ) && !defined( 
LIBFSHFS_DLL_IMPORT ) && !defined( __arm__ ) && !defined( __clang__ ) && 
!defined( __CYGWIN__ ) && !defined( __hppa__ ) && !defined( __mips__ ) && 
!defined( __sparc__ ) && !defined( __riscv ) && !defined( HAVE_ASAN )
+ #define HAVE_FSHFS_TEST_MEMORY                1
+ #endif
+ 
--- libfshfs-20201104/debian/patches/series     1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 
+0100
+++ libfshfs-20201104/debian/patches/series     2020-12-27 14:51:11.000000000 
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+01-disable-memory-tests-on-riscv64.patch

Regards,
Aurelien

Reply via email to