[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#91311: semid_ds conflicts with SUSv2



At Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:53:23 +0000,
Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:09:08PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> 
> > So, what is the problem?  TenDRA warns something?  I rebuild TenDRA
> > without any your debian patches, but the result of my build is not
> > related any semid_ds issue.
> 
> TenDRA fails to compile when one of the patches is removed since it
> checks the exact type while building its APIs.  IIRC it's one of the
> bits in this hunk but I can't remember which:
> 
> --- tendra-4.1.2.orig/src/lib/machines/linux/80x86/startup/xpg3.h
> +++ tendra-4.1.2/src/lib/machines/linux/80x86/startup/xpg3.h
> @@ -4,8 +4,9 @@
>  #define _SVID_SOURCE           1
>  #define _BSD_SOURCE            1
>  #define __SVR4_I386_ABI_L1__   1
> -#define __semun_defined                1
> 
>  #define __WRONG_XPG3_SEARCH_H
>  #define __WRONG_XPG3_SEARCH_H_SRCH_OLD
>  #define __WRONG_XPG3_SEARCH_H_SRCH_PROTO
> +#define __WRONG_XPG3_SYS_SEM_H
> +#define __WRONG_XPG3_SYS_SEM_H_SEM_PROTO
> 
> One of the last two defines there.  I can check further tonight if you
> want.

Yes, please check.  My build does not barf the error in sem.[ch] and
sem_prot.[ch].

> > Repeatedly, some architecture defined it as unsigned long.
> > sizeof(unsigned long) > sizeof(unsigned short).
> > If we change it to unsigned short, then the data may be lost.
> 
> Sorry, I don't know the best way to fix this in a glibc-style fashion.
> It's a rather pedantic bug at the best of times so making a fix only
> come into play when people particularly ask for standards conformance
> might be an option.

OK, I see the point is "pedantic" conformance analysis of glibc
definition, not standard conformance.

Regards,
-- gotom



Reply to: