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

Bug#728053: [PATCH] mesa: FTBFS: invalid alignment assumptions



tags 728053 + patch
thanks

Dear Maintainers,

I’ve prepared the attached patch for mesa to fix this issue and
built it once, fully, to test that it no longer FTBFSes with it
applied. Please add this patch to the Debian package as well as
forward it upstream.

Thanks,
//mirabilos
-- 
<diogenese> Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it.
<igli> yeah but it means if you really care about something, don't
    ritualise it, or you will lose it. don't fetishise it, don't
    obsess. or you'll forget why you love it in the first place.
diff -u mesa-9.2.2/debian/changelog mesa-9.2.2/debian/changelog
--- mesa-9.2.2/debian/changelog
+++ mesa-9.2.2/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+mesa (9.2.2-1+m68k.1) unreleased; urgency=low
+
+  * Fix struct alignment assumptions. (Closes: #728053)
+
+ -- Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>  Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:05:12 +0100
+
 mesa (9.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * New upstream release.
diff -u mesa-9.2.2/debian/patches/series mesa-9.2.2/debian/patches/series
--- mesa-9.2.2/debian/patches/series
+++ mesa-9.2.2/debian/patches/series
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+12-m68k-struct-alignment.diff
 01_gbm_egl.diff
 02_gbm_no_undefined.diff
 04_osmesa_version.diff
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- mesa-9.2.2.orig/debian/patches/12-m68k-struct-alignment.diff
+++ mesa-9.2.2/debian/patches/12-m68k-struct-alignment.diff
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org
+Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:04:07 +0100
+Subject: Fix FTBFS on m68k due to invalid struct alignment assumptions
+Debian-Bug: #728053
+
+Make alignment assumptions explicit by inserting correct padding,
+as upstream already did for other parts of the structure.
+
+--- a/src/gallium/drivers/nv50/nv84_video_bsp.c
++++ b/src/gallium/drivers/nv50/nv84_video_bsp.c
+@@ -67,10 +67,15 @@ struct iparm {
+          uint32_t field_is_ref; // 04 // bit0: top, bit1: bottom
+          uint8_t is_long_term; // 08
+          uint8_t non_existing; // 09
++         uint8_t u0a; // 0a
++         uint8_t u0b; // 0b
+          uint32_t frame_idx; // 0c
+          uint32_t field_order_cnt[2]; // 10
+          uint32_t mvidx; // 18
+          uint8_t field_pic_flag; // 1c
++         uint8_t u1d; // 1d
++         uint8_t u1e; // 1e
++         uint8_t u1f; // 1f
+          // 20
+       } refs[0x10]; // 1e0
+    } ipicparm; // 150

Reply to: