Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-27 Thread Florian Weimer
* Sérgio Basto: > OK , I made another patch [1] not touching ./Source/Common/gdcmString.h > and instead use definition of EOL, I use the default char of template > ... > > [1] > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/sergiomb/rpms/gdcm/blob/master/f/gdcm-2.8.8-dont_use_EOF.patch That looks much

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 22:44 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Sérgio Basto: > > > stdio.h defines EOF as -1 , so if we want work with files > > and use EOF character, we need use signed chars, though . > > No, this is not how it works. > > Most C interfaces (hopefully all of them, but I

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Florian Weimer
* Sérgio Basto: > stdio.h defines EOF as -1 , so if we want work with files > and use EOF character, we need use signed chars, though . No, this is not how it works. Most C interfaces (hopefully all of them, but I wouldn't be sure) that use in-band signaling for EOF return ints. EOF is

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tom Hughes: > On 26/02/2019 19:42, Sérgio Basto wrote: > >> Is stdio.h that defines EOF as -1 , so if we what work with files and >> use EOF character, we need use signed chars, though . > > No, you need to use int. The EOF value is deliberately outside the > range of character values so that

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 20:52 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 26/02/19 19:42 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 14:46 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On 26/02/19 13:28 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Sérgio Basto: > > > > > > > > > The key was "can't represent -1

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/02/19 19:42 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 14:46 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/02/19 13:28 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Sérgio Basto: > > > The key was "can't represent -1 with an unsigned number" , I add > > some sign char to the code [1] and it fix the FTBFS

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Tom Hughes
On 26/02/2019 19:42, Sérgio Basto wrote: Is stdio.h that defines EOF as -1 , so if we what work with files and use EOF character, we need use signed chars, though . No, you need to use int. The EOF value is deliberately outside the range of character values so that EOF is not a valid

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 14:46 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 26/02/19 13:28 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Sérgio Basto: > > > > > The key was "can't represent -1 with an unsigned number" , I add > > > some sign char to the code [1] and it fix the FTBFS > > > > > > Thanks , > > > > > >

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/02/19 13:28 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Sérgio Basto: The key was "can't represent -1 with an unsigned number" , I add some sign char to the code [1] and it fix the FTBFS Thanks , [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/sergiomb/rpms/gdcm/blob/master/f/gdcm-2.8.8-fix-narrow.patch

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-26 Thread Florian Weimer
* Sérgio Basto: > The key was "can't represent -1 with an unsigned number" , I add some sign > char to the code [1] and it fix the FTBFS > > Thanks , > > [1] > https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/sergiomb/rpms/gdcm/blob/master/f/gdcm-2.8.8-fix-narrow.patch Please note that this patch changes

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-25 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 09:58 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 19:59 +, Sérgio wrote: > > Add -fsigned-char fix the build thanks, I still not understood, why > > only ppc64le and GCC 9 > > I can't speak to the gcc9 part, but this would probably have failed > on > aarch64 and

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-25 Thread Adam Jackson
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 19:59 +, Sérgio wrote: > Add -fsigned-char fix the build thanks, I still not understood, why > only ppc64le and GCC 9 I can't speak to the gcc9 part, but this would probably have failed on aarch64 and s390x as well, you just didn't notice because those aren't arches in

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-22 Thread Sérgio
Add -fsigned-char fix the build thanks, I still not understood, why only ppc64le and GCC 9 A 22 de fevereiro de 2019 07:05:25 WET, Florian Weimer escreveu: >* Jerry James: > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:28 PM Sérgio Basto >wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I'm trying fix a FTBFS of gdcm , but just in

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-21 Thread Florian Weimer
* Jerry James: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:28 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm trying fix a FTBFS of gdcm , but just in ppc64le rawhide I have one >> strange compile error [1] which I can't find a solution, all logs where >> [2] . Can someone help me to fix it ? > > I think you need to add

Re: GCC9 bug on ppc64le ? or why just fail in ppc64le rawhide?

2019-02-21 Thread Jerry James
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:28 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying fix a FTBFS of gdcm , but just in ppc64le rawhide I have one > strange compile error [1] which I can't find a solution, all logs where > [2] . Can someone help me to fix it ? I think you need to add -fsigned-char to the build