On Thu, 10 May 2018 10:47:09 -0400 Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: Dan HorĂ¡k <d...@danny.cz> > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1572540 > Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> > --- > pixman/pixman-vmx.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/pixman/pixman-vmx.c b/pixman/pixman-vmx.c > index 41efdcf..52de37e 100644 > --- a/pixman/pixman-vmx.c > +++ b/pixman/pixman-vmx.c > @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ do > \ > #define COMPUTE_SHIFT_MASKC(dest, source, mask) > > # define LOAD_VECTOR(source) \ > - v ## source = *((typeof(v ## source)*)source); > + v ## source = (typeof(v ## source))vec_xl(0, source); > > # define LOAD_VECTORS(dest, source) \ > LOAD_VECTOR(source); \ Thanks! Reviewed-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com> But can we have some sort of a commit message with a brief summary? With some information about how the problem exhibited itself. Also by following the bugzilla links, I can see that RedHat is apparently not running the pixman test suite (or is ignoring its results) when rebuilding packages with newer versions of GCC. It took more than two months to debug the problem, which has been originally reported at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1546693 That's an excellent example, demonstrating why the pixman test suite exists in the first place and how it helps to ensure that the end users are much less likely to encounter problems if package maintainers are doing a proper job. -- Best regards, Siarhei Siamashka _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman