RFH: kgb FTBFS in arm (ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
After having several troubles getting kgb to be built and be functional on
all the architectures, with my -8 upload I tried to make it work by using
the packed attribute, as the code relies on the size of the structures
(I've already contacted upstream, and even after a set of changes, bytes
order in arm causes the built binary to break binary compatibility of the
compressed files).
Before uploading I asked somebody to attempt to build the package in arm,
and that person said it did build. So I uploaded, but acc to [1] the
assertion still fails (i.e. binary compatibility would break).
I'm a bit puzzled by the warnings which are the only sign of why the
assertion still fails:
kgb_arch_posix_by_slawek.cpp: At global scope:
kgb_arch_posix_by_slawek.cpp: In instantiation
of 'Hashtable<Counter>::HashElement':
kgb_arch_posix_by_slawek.cpp:1124: instantiated
from 'Hashtable<T>::Hashtable(U32) [with T = Counter]'
kgb_arch_posix_by_slawek.cpp:1366: instantiated from here
kgb_arch_posix_by_slawek.cpp:1064: warning: ignoring packed attribute
because of unpacked non-POD field 'Counter
Hashtable<Counter>::HashElement::c [15]'
I've added some __attribute__((__packed__)) on the places where I though it
still needed, and removed the ifeq (,$(findstring arm,$(DEB_BUILD_ARCH)))
condition from debian/rules and tried to build on my i386, but I still get
the warnings.
I'm out of ideas, what am I missing?
.dsc:
http://i386-geomirror.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kgb/kgb_1.0b4-8.dsc
[1]http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=kgb;ver=1.0b4-8;arch=arm;stamp=1209449475
TIA.
Sincerely,
- --
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIF8VrYy49rUbZzloRAl1wAJ9vnO/IuqKx/OCmI2WqMKzDnXAr7QCfUAF0
7zLRM7c1ce3M6r9tTjwphio=
=300F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: