Hi Steven, Steven Robbins, on 2020-08-08 17:25:05 -0500: > On Saturday, August 8, 2020 4:34:39 P.M. CDT Étienne Mollier wrote: > > > 2. I wonder whether some of the older patches (dating from 2016) should be > > > dropped; in particular: > > > > > > atomic_load.patch > > > > I'm missing context, and the issue tracker pointed to by the URL > > in the header does not seem to have migrated to the current > > platform unfortunately. :/ > > I managed to find it here: https://insightsoftwareconsortium.atlassian.net/ > browse/ITK-3413 > > But that doesn't shed a lot of light. The only thing I see relevant is "Make > the Load operation truly atomic - doesn't change anything on amd64 or i386, > but it may be of interest for other archs. " However, the patch removes one > usage of __sync_synchronize, but leaves another in the Store() function, which > seems suspect. I would believe that there may have been a bug in the x86 > codegen in 2016, but we've got 4 years of compiler fixes since then, so I am of > the opinion to remove this on that basis. And the basis that upstream ITK has > not incorporated this change in 4 years. Okay, I guess this might be removed then. > > > itk4.10.0-python-wrapping.patch > > > > I have the impression that this second one is needed to avoid > > use of included third party libraries and use the one provided > > by Debian. > > You must be looking at a different patch. Indeed I erroneously had a look at the nifti patch; let's say that it was late in my TZ. :) > This one is: > > --- a/Modules/Filtering/ImageGrid/wrapping/itkResampleImageFilter.wrap > +++ b/Modules/Filtering/ImageGrid/wrapping/itkResampleImageFilter.wrap > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ > foreach(d ${ITK_WRAP_IMAGE_DIMS}) > foreach(t ${to_types}) > itk_wrap_template("${ITKM_VI${t}${d}}${ITKM_VI${t}${d}}" "${ITKT_VI${t} > ${d}},${ITKT_VI${t}${d}}") > + itk_wrap_template("${ITKM_I${t}${d}}${ITKM_I${t}${d}}" "${ITKT_I${t}$ > {d}},${ITKT_I${t}${d}}") > endforeach() > endforeach() > > I don't see any motivation to adding the extra wrapping. This patch was added > in 2016, along with itk4.10.0_itkTriangleHelper.h.patch (since removed) to fix > a build failure on amd64 (see #835761). The bug traces to ITK issue https:// > insightsoftwareconsortium.atlassian.net/browse/ITK-3466 which was said to be > addressed in 4.10.1 with this commit: https://github.com/ > InsightSoftwareConsortium/ITK/commit/be1e9f88ff036048148d4b8b887b8671739307d4 > This commit amounts to the content of the former > itk4.10.0_itkTriangleHelper.h.patch. > > I have run the build with this patch removed to no noticable effect -- only > test failure remains Test #2625: PythonExtras. > > This seems safe to remove. Agreed, assuming upstream fixed the corresponding issue somehow. > > > itk4.12.0-resource_cprobe.patch > > > > This last one seems needed for i386 support, but might require > > to check how behaves the targeted equipment before drop. Maybe > > I can attempt a build without the patch on my i386 alarm clock. > > I ran the build with this patch removed to no noticable effect -- only test > failure remains Test #2625: PythonExtras. But this was amd64. I'll do it > again on x86 before comitting the removal. I triggered a build on i386 without those patches, will see how it goes. I'm doing it on real hardware, so it smells like it will take quite a long time, hope it won't melt with these days' heat. About the Test #2625: PythonExtras, I failed to reproduce any issue at build time. Actually I see no such test there, as if something might have been missing on my side. I triggered an autopkgtest, in case I haven't been looking at the proper location. Kind Regards, -- Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org> Old rsa/3072: 5ab1 4edf 63bb ccff 8b54 2fa9 59da 56fe fff3 882d New rsa/4096: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature