Bug#323221: marked as done (implicit pointer conversion)
Your message dated Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:02:05 -0700
with message-id <E1E4iLd-00057U-00@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#323221: fixed in camlidl 1.05-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Aug 2005 14:51:11 +0000
>From dannf@hp.com Mon Aug 15 07:51:11 2005
Return-path: <dannf@hp.com>
Received: from atlrel7.hp.com [156.153.255.213]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1E4gIx-0001g4-00; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:51:11 -0700
Received: from smtp1.fc.hp.com (smtp.fc.hp.com [15.11.136.119])
by atlrel7.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130A31E7;
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ldl.fc.hp.com (ldl.fc.hp.com [15.11.146.30])
by smtp1.fc.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 046A5395B4; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:50:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ldl.fc.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37D51341DA;
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:58 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ldl.fc.hp.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (ldl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 07262-10; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:57 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (hplu.lsy [10.100.0.20])
by ldl.fc.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071D81340D4;
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:56 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: implicit pointer conversion
From: dann frazier <dannf@hp.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Cc: David Mosberger <David.Mosberger@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:52 -0600
Message-Id: <[🔎] 1124117452.22357.17.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ldl.fc.hp.com
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: camlidl
Version: 1.05-2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Our build log filter[1] detected a problem[2] that will cause your
package to segfault on architectures where the size of a pointer is
greater than the size of an integer, such as ia64.
[1] http://people.debian.org/~dannf/check-implicit-pointer-functions
[2] Function `caml_format_exception' implicitly converted to pointer at comerror.c:171
--- camlidl-1.05/runtime/comerror.c.orig 2005-08-15 08:52:43.000000000 -0600
+++ camlidl-1.05/runtime/comerror.c 2005-08-15 08:46:09.000000000 -0600
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <caml/callback.h>
#include <caml/fail.h>
#include <caml/alloc.h>
+#include <caml/printexc.h>
#include "camlidlruntime.h"
#include "comstuff.h"
--
dann frazier <dannf@hp.com>
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 323221-close) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Aug 2005 17:09:59 +0000
>From katie@spohr.debian.org Mon Aug 15 10:09:59 2005
Return-path: <katie@spohr.debian.org>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1E4iLd-00057U-00; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:02:05 -0700
From: Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org>
To: 323221-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#323221: fixed in camlidl 1.05-3
Message-Id: <E1E4iLd-00057U-00@spohr.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@spohr.debian.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:02:05 -0700
Delivered-To: 323221-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Source: camlidl
Source-Version: 1.05-3
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
camlidl, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
camlidl_1.05-3.diff.gz
to pool/main/c/camlidl/camlidl_1.05-3.diff.gz
camlidl_1.05-3.dsc
to pool/main/c/camlidl/camlidl_1.05-3.dsc
camlidl_1.05-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/c/camlidl/camlidl_1.05-3_i386.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 323221@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org> (supplier of updated camlidl package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:35:03 +0200
Source: camlidl
Binary: camlidl
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.05-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian OCaml Maintainers <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org>
Description:
camlidl - Stub code generator for Objective Caml
Closes: 323221
Changes:
camlidl (1.05-3) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Include printexc.h in comerror.c (Closes: #323221).
* Upgrade policy to 3.6.2.0 (no change)
Files:
2c6ffb0622af38632cfc7425d9088c0e 834 devel optional camlidl_1.05-3.dsc
37734a27a53cf67bd7c8d86af2ac40f7 7676 devel optional camlidl_1.05-3.diff.gz
0636ba2ba12a38a05af8a5653f89b7f7 108682 devel optional camlidl_1.05-3_i386.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDAMaJtzWmSeC6BMERAqseAJwMYrjhZQL4QpK+8H3NhWgrDYz7qgCdHaql
LpyZG6N7A4ucOKAJGCuidEs=
=nY9K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: