> The reason I didn't use the testcases you wrote was simply because they
> depended on llvm tooling being present and you said you didn't care about
> making them work with gcc.
gcc did not support the needed functionality the time when I was implementing
it. I sure do not care at all about gc
Could you rather point what was incomplete on the previous testcases than to
screw it up? You removed the only part that matters.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1537#issuecomm
The patchset regressed against my version as it no longer tests rpmbuild
compatibility with LLVM product as required by paying customers of Red Hat
company.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com
I am disowning this patchset as it no longer matches my work assignment. Feel
free to file a new rpm pull-request yourself.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1332#issuecomment-77
Closed #1332.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1332#event-4331352186___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rp
> This looks OK. I added a description of which functions were separate from
> where to the commit message and rebased the commit to the master branch.
I do not see which patch series part you refer to. I do not see any update of
this pull request or a new pull request.
--
You are receiving t
> The attached patch is part of the proposed patch series for PR/1332 and looks
> good. It can be applied independently IMHO.
There is no patch attached to the github notification mail. I do not see which
patch series part you refer to.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply t
e difficult
how to code it with these existing issues.
> commit 0da448c337d481f1c50af212246ceb213a7d80cc (HEAD -> master) Author: Jan
> Kratochvil ***@***.***> Date: Mon Aug 17 21:46:47 2020 +0200 debugedit: Fix
> handling in caller for errors in called read_dwarf2_line. diff --
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:14:20 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Should be pretty obvious really, starting with: it's a bit much to ask
> people to (possibly build and) install a whole another compiler just for
> a few test-cases that might not even concern them.
OK, sorry I forgot the upstream point
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 09:25:22 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> We can't really require both gcc and clang for rpm compilation,
I do not understand why but OK. Do you plan to update the .spec BuildRequires?
> we need to skip (instead of failing) debugedit tests that depend on
> a non-present compi
diff --git a/ci/Dockerfile b/ci/Dockerfile
index d8b0115bd..2e872be5f 100644
--- a/ci/Dockerfile
+++ b/ci/Dockerfile
@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ RUN dnf -y install \
pkgconfig \
/usr/bin/gdb-add-index \
dwz \
+ clang llvm \
&& dnf clean all
COPY . .
diff --git a/tests/debugedit.at b/tests/d
diff --git a/tests/debugedit.at b/tests/debugedit.at
index 49721a342..bcd86ac67 100644
--- a/tests/debugedit.at
+++ b/tests/debugedit.at
@@ -253,9 +253,8 @@ AT_CLEANUP
# ===
# Make sure -fdebug-types-section has updated strings in objects.
# ===
-AT_SETUP([debugedit .debug_types objects])
-AT_
diff --git a/tools/debugedit.c b/tools/debugedit.c
index c2884933c..8e85847d1 100644
--- a/tools/debugedit.c
+++ b/tools/debugedit.c
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ typedef struct
int shift = 0; \
do \
{ \
-
To be used by next DWARF-5 patch.
diff --git a/tools/debugedit.c b/tools/debugedit.c
index ff72759ca..9f1dc2d3f 100644
--- a/tools/debugedit.c
+++ b/tools/debugedit.c
@@ -1457,37 +1457,128 @@ edit_dwarf2_line (DSO *dso)
}
}
-/* Called during phase zero for each debug_line table referenced
diff --git a/tools/debugedit.c b/tools/debugedit.c
index 8e85847d1..ff72759ca 100644
--- a/tools/debugedit.c
+++ b/tools/debugedit.c
@@ -1155,7 +1155,7 @@ get_line_table (DSO *dso, size_t off, struct line_table
**table)
if (lines->table[i].old_idx == off)
{
*table = &lines->t
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:57:59 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> The commit summary is "Implement DWARF-5", but it mixes that plus
> support for an alternative compiler and debug-types in one commit.
> Would it be possible to split this in 3 patches, one for basic DWARF-5
> support, one for testing again
**semaphoreci** failed because the .spec file needs:
```
%if %{with check}
BuildRequires: fakechroot gnupg2
+BuildRequires: clang llvm
%endif
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-soft
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1332
-- Commit Summary --
* debugedit: Implement DWARF-5.
-- File Changes --
M tests/debugedit.at (249)
M tools/debugedit.c (914)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.
podman fails for me but I will try some `make check` in some VM next time; I
did not want to spend time fixing local check:
`* "localhost/fedora:32": Error initializing source
docker://localhost/fedora:32: error pinging docker registry localhost: Get
"https://localhost/v2/": x509: certificate ha
Closed #1329.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1329#event-3650665257___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
So far only submitting to see the CI results.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1329
-- Commit Summary --
* debugedit: Implement DWARF-5.
-- File Changes --
M tests/debugedit.at (122)
M tools/debugedi
It looks to me as reviewed:
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2020-August/014792.html
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2020-August/014797.html
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:55:35 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> But I pulled
> that branch and reviewed the actual commits (1d080e02 and c804a960).
git clone -b types g...@github.com:jankratochvil/rpm.git rpm-types
commit 8b5bbcc6d586be50b6a251256c39c3b0332b1f2b
debugedit: Fix missing relocation o
@jankratochvil pushed 1 commit.
c804a960902acf5b117c61ac129363937bf746e5 debugedit: Fix missing relocation of
.debug_types section.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1323/files/0f56c2ff89
debugedit: Fix missing relocation of .debug_types section.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1323
> But here is a review inline:
> If it is for the same lines that are moved from edit_dwarf2 () to
> edit_info () below then it is fine, but if you do it in a separate
> commit mayb
@jankratochvil pushed 2 commits.
1d080e02409d181169d3aec2a19192418f253fd3 [NFC] debugedit: Move code from
edit_dwarf2() to edit_info().
0f56c2ff89029bd515dfb49af398427f97d348e7 debugedit: Fix missing relocation of
.debug_types section.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
@jankratochvil pushed 1 commit.
6254f165671bce379ef013025a1f1d5bf5d68eb1 debugedit: Fix missing relocation of
.debug_types section.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1323/files/a1819fb335
There is a new testcase: `debugedit .debug_types exe`
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1323
-- Commit Summary --
* [NFC] debugedit: Reindent edit_dwarf2().
* debugedit: Fix missing relocation of .debug_types
Closed #1322.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1322#event-3600773769___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
semaphoreci test failed, I will recheck it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1322#issuecomment-665916452___
Rpm-m
testcase:
```
rm -f file{,-orig}{,.xz};wget
https://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/file-orig.xz;xz -dv file-orig.xz;gcc -o
debugedit tools/debugedit.c tools/hashtab.c -Wall -g -I. -DHAVE_UNISTD_H
-DHAVE_SETPROGNAME -DHAVE_SYS_PARAM_H -D_GNU_SOURCE -DVERSION='""' -lelf -lrpm
-lrpmio -lpopt -ldw;cp -
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1322
-- Commit Summary --
* [NFC] debugedit: Reindent edit_dwarf2().
* debugedit: Fix missing relocation of .debug_types section.
-- File Changes --
M tools/debugedit.
32 matches
Mail list logo
