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

Re: Maude fails to build on armhf



On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 07:45:33PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Maude fails to build on armhf/arm32 arch with:
> 
> In file included from timeManagerSymbol.cc:64:
> timeActions.cc: In member function ‘void TimeManagerSymbol::getTimeSinceEpoch(FreeDagNode*, ObjectSystemRewritingContext&)’:
> timeActions.cc:43:41: error: call of overloaded ‘__gmp_expr(__time64_t&)’ is ambiguous
>    43 |   mpz_class nanoSeconds(timeValue.tv_sec);
>       |                                         ^
> In file included from ../../src/BuiltIn/succSymbol.hh:28,
>                  from timeManagerSymbol.cc:53:
> /usr/include/gmpxx.h:1646:3: note: candidate: ‘__gmp_expr<__mpz_struct [1], __mpz_struct [1]>::__gmp_expr(double)’
>  1646 |   __GMPXX_DEFINE_ARITHMETIC_CONSTRUCTORS
>       |   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /usr/include/gmpxx.h:1646:3: note: candidate: ‘__gmp_expr<__mpz_struct [1], __mpz_struct [1]>::__gmp_expr(float)’
> 
> Full long here: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=maude&arch=armhf&ver=3.4-1&stamp=1712489526&raw=0
> And Debian bug report here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067957
> 
> Would be great if you have the cycles to look into it.

This patch fixes the issue at hand but I am unsure if it is sensible to apply
it.

diff --git a/src/ObjectSystem/timeActions.cc b/src/ObjectSystem/timeActions.cc
index 77395aa..63aa028 100644
--- a/src/ObjectSystem/timeActions.cc
+++ b/src/ObjectSystem/timeActions.cc
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ TimeManagerSymbol::getTimeSinceEpoch(FreeDagNode* message, ObjectSystemRewriting
   DebugSave(r, clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &timeValue));
   Assert(r == 0, "clock_gettime() failed: " << strerror(errno));
 
-  mpz_class nanoSeconds(timeValue.tv_sec);
+  mpz_class nanoSeconds(static_cast<unsigned long>(timeValue.tv_sec));
   nanoSeconds *= BILLION;
   nanoSeconds += timeValue.tv_nsec;
 

Best,
Nilesh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: