Hi all,

updated debdiff attached. Package compiles fine with it
(on i386 and m68k), and the invalid alignment assumptions
were made explicit with no ABI breakage.
Please apply.

Thanks,
//mirabilos
-- 
15:41⎜<Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge> Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
diff -u mesa-10.2.3/debian/changelog mesa-10.2.3/debian/changelog
--- mesa-10.2.3/debian/changelog
+++ mesa-10.2.3/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+mesa (10.2.3-1+m68k.1) unreleased; urgency=low
+
+  * Fix struct alignment assumptions. (Closes: #728053)
+
+ -- Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de>  Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:50:57 +0200
+
 mesa (10.2.3-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   [ Maarten Lankhorst ]
diff -u mesa-10.2.3/debian/patches/series mesa-10.2.3/debian/patches/series
--- mesa-10.2.3/debian/patches/series
+++ mesa-10.2.3/debian/patches/series
@@ -1,0 +2 @@
+08_gallium-fix-build-failure-on-m68k.diff
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- mesa-10.2.3.orig/debian/patches/08_gallium-fix-build-failure-on-m68k.diff
+++ mesa-10.2.3/debian/patches/08_gallium-fix-build-failure-on-m68k.diff
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+From: Thorsten Glaser <t...@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/nouveau/nv50/nv84_video_bsp.c
++++ b/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/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 via email to