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

Re: Guile language support in make



Andreas Schwab dixit:

>Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de> writes:
>
>> and the guile-2.0 Build-Depends on m68k because guile does not
>> work there (and nobody appears capable enough to debug it)?
>
>Index: guile-2.0.9/libguile/gsubr.c

Thanks Andreas!

Rob: I’ll try building guile-2.0 with the attached debdiff
and report success or failure afterwards. Can you please
review it if it’s okay for inclusion, if it indeed fixes
the bug? (And of course feeding back to upstream.)

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
[00:02] <Vutral> gecko: benutzt du emacs ?
[00:03] <gecko> nö          [00:03] <gecko> nur n normalen mac
[00:04] <Vutral> argl       [00:04] <Vutral> ne den editor
	-- Vutral und gecko2 in #deutsch (NB: Editor? Betriebssystem.)
diff -Nru guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/changelog guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/changelog
--- guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/changelog	2014-04-23 19:19:00.000000000 +0200
+++ guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/changelog	2014-05-12 21:34:12.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+guile-2.0 (2.0.11+1-1+m68k.1) unreleased; urgency=low
+
+  * Apply patch from Andreas Schwab to fix bogus alignment
+    assumptions and using the wrong register. (Closes: #649718)
+
+ -- Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>  Mon, 12 May 2014 21:33:08 +0200
+
 guile-2.0 (2.0.11+1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Incorporate upstream version 2.0.11.
diff -Nru guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/9000-Fix-alignment-and-m68k-registers.patch guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/9000-Fix-alignment-and-m68k-registers.patch
--- guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/9000-Fix-alignment-and-m68k-registers.patch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/9000-Fix-alignment-and-m68k-registers.patch	2014-05-12 21:32:47.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+From schwab@linux-m68k.org Mon May 12 18:37:51 2014
+From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
+Message-ID: <[🔎] 87y4y7uf4y.fsf@igel.home>
+To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>
+Cc: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>, debian-68k@lists.debian.org
+Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:37:49 +0200
+X-Original-Subject: Re: Guile language support in make
+Subject: Fix alignment and registers for m68k
+
+Fix bogus alignment assumptions (on some architectures, “natural”
+alignment is not used, which means even an uint64_t is possibly
+unaligned, or aligned to only a 2 byte (m68k) or 4 byte boundary).
+
+Also, fix register name for m68k.
+--
+
+Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de> writes:
+
+> and the guile-2.0 Build-Depends on m68k because guile does not
+> work there (and nobody appears capable enough to debug it)?
+
+--- a/libguile/gsubr.c
++++ b/libguile/gsubr.c
+@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@
+ */
+ static const struct
+ {
+-  scm_t_uint64 dummy; /* ensure 8-byte alignment; perhaps there's a better way */
++  scm_t_uint64 dummy SCM_ALIGNED (sizeof (scm_t_uint64)); /* ensure 8-byte alignment; perhaps there's a better way */
+   const scm_t_uint8 bytes[121 * (sizeof (struct scm_objcode) + 16
+                                  + sizeof (struct scm_objcode) + 32)];
+ } raw_bytecode = {
+@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ static const struct
+ 
+ static const struct
+ {
+-  scm_t_uint64 dummy; /* alignment */
++  scm_t_uint64 dummy SCM_ALIGNED (sizeof (scm_t_uint64)); /* alignment */
+   scm_t_cell cells[121 * 2]; /* 11*11 double cells */
+ } objcode_cells = {
+   0,
+--- a/libguile/vm-engine.h
++++ b/libguile/vm-engine.h
+@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@
+ #define FP_REG asm("%r16")
+ #endif
+ #ifdef __mc68000__
+-#define IP_REG asm("a5")
++#define IP_REG asm("a3")
+ #define SP_REG asm("a4")
+ #define FP_REG
+ #endif
diff -Nru guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/series guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/series
--- guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/series	2014-04-23 19:11:29.000000000 +0200
+++ guile-2.0-2.0.11+1/debian/patches/series	2014-05-12 21:31:13.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
 0001-Change-guile-to-guile-X.Y-for-info-pages.patch
 0002-Mark-mutex-with-owner-not-retained-threads-test-as-u.patch
+9000-Fix-alignment-and-m68k-registers.patch

Reply to: