On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:29 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> No, see my other mail on what should be done.
>
Since the scratch build shows that the tests pass I'm tempted to disable
%check for now just to fix the FTBFS issue and re-enable when qt is fixed.
Thanks,
Richard
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:38 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 02:29:32AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> > Richard Shaw wrote on 2019/02/27 2:23:
> > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:17 AM Mamoru TASAKA <
> mtas...@fedoraproject.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So... I guess Qt
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 01:25:54PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > What I did is:
> >
> > LANG=C grep -rl 'foreach.*,' . | \
> > xargs sed -i -e '\@foreach.*,@s|foreach\(.*\),|for\1:|'
> >
> > So now I appreciate it if someone would investigate Q_FOREACH macro.
> >
>
> Thanks Mamoru! As
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:39 AM Mamoru TASAKA
wrote:
> Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2019/02/27 2:29:
> > Richard Shaw wrote on 2019/02/27 2:23:
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:17 AM Mamoru TASAKA <
> mtas...@fedoraproject.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So... I guess Qt "foreach" behavior changed with
Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2019/02/27 2:29:
Richard Shaw wrote on 2019/02/27 2:23:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:17 AM Mamoru TASAKA
wrote:
So... I guess Qt "foreach" behavior changed with gcc9..
Is there any chance this will change or magically get fixed if qt is
rebuilt with gcc 9?
Thanks,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 02:29:32AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote on 2019/02/27 2:23:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:17 AM Mamoru TASAKA
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So... I guess Qt "foreach" behavior changed with gcc9..
> > >
> >
> > Is there any chance this will change or
Richard Shaw wrote on 2019/02/27 2:23:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:17 AM Mamoru TASAKA
wrote:
So... I guess Qt "foreach" behavior changed with gcc9..
Is there any chance this will change or magically get fixed if qt is
rebuilt with gcc 9?
Thanks,
Richard
Well, foreach or Q_FOREACH is
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:17 AM Mamoru TASAKA
wrote:
> So... I guess Qt "foreach" behavior changed with gcc9..
>
Is there any chance this will change or magically get fixed if qt is
rebuilt with gcc 9?
Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list --
John Reiser wrote on 2019/02/26 13:18:
That test 'testvoidarg' succeeds for me (normal termination, no SIGSEGV) on
Fedora 28 and Fedora 29.
Yes, it only seems to affect f30/Rawhide with GCC 9 (though I'm not sure it's
the culprit).
The traceback says:
> 41
There are 8 libraries (-lQtTest -lQtCore -lQtGui -lxslt -lxml2 -lQtCore
-lQtXmlPatterns -lQtXml)
plus an explicit libapiextractor.so.0.10.1. Did you run nine tests,
replacing the pieces
one-by-one with their Fedora 29 versions?
I'm not sure how to do that in a mock chroot...
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:52 AM John Reiser wrote:
> > Is it definitely the linking? Or should I check the compiler arguments
> as well?
>
> There are 8 libraries (-lQtTest -lQtCore -lQtGui -lxslt -lxml2 -lQtCore
> -lQtXmlPatterns -lQtXml)
> plus an explicit libapiextractor.so.0.10.1. Did you
Is it definitely the linking? Or should I check the compiler arguments as well?
There are 8 libraries (-lQtTest -lQtCore -lQtGui -lxslt -lxml2 -lQtCore
-lQtXmlPatterns -lQtXml)
plus an explicit libapiextractor.so.0.10.1. Did you run nine tests, replacing
the pieces
one-by-one with their
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:44 AM John Reiser wrote:
> > 'addedFunc' itself is 0 (NULL).
> > Substituting testvoidarg.cpp.o as compiled by
> gcc-8.2.1-6.fc28.x86_64 (from the same source)
> > gives the same SIGSEGV. So compiling testvoidarg.cpp with gcc-9 is
> no longer a suspect.
> >
'addedFunc' itself is 0 (NULL).
Substituting testvoidarg.cpp.o as compiled by gcc-8.2.1-6.fc28.x86_64 (from
the same source)
gives the same SIGSEGV. So compiling testvoidarg.cpp with gcc-9 is no
longer a suspect.
I just performed a mockbuild for Fedora 29 and all tests passed...
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:19 PM John Reiser wrote:
> > That test 'testvoidarg' succeeds for me (normal termination, no
> SIGSEGV) on Fedora 28 and Fedora 29.
> >
> >
> > Yes, it only seems to affect f30/Rawhide with GCC 9 (though I'm not sure
> it's the culprit).
> >
> >
> > The
That test 'testvoidarg' succeeds for me (normal termination, no SIGSEGV) on
Fedora 28 and Fedora 29.
Yes, it only seems to affect f30/Rawhide with GCC 9 (though I'm not sure it's
the culprit).
The traceback says:
> 41 QCOMPARE(addedFunc->arguments().count(), 0);
so the
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:27 PM John Reiser wrote:
> On 2/25/19 4:26 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > apiextractor builds but pretty much all the tests fail. I got this from
> gdb in a mock chroot but not sure how to get more (debuginfo install in a
> chroot?)
> >
> > (gdb) run
> > Starting program:
On 2/25/19 4:26 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
apiextractor builds but pretty much all the tests fail. I got this from gdb in
a mock chroot but not sure how to get more (debuginfo install in a chroot?)
(gdb) run
Starting program:
18 matches
Mail list logo
