On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:47:30AM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> Actually the fix is obvious. Patch attached. Passes test suite and builds
> to completion on armel and alpha.
Thank you very much. Applied and uploaded.
Regards,
Rene
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.d
Control: tags 710336 + patch
Actually the fix is obvious. Patch attached. Passes test suite and builds
to completion on armel and alpha.
Cheers
Michael
--- graphite2-1.2.1-orig/src/Pass.cpp 2013-02-28 08:32:04.0 +1300
+++ graphite2-1.2.1/src/Pass.cpp 2013-06-02 11:26:52.004522217 +1200
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 08:57:37PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> just noticed I missed a part here:
>
> 10:29 < suihkulokki> setting it to 5 will make the code SIGBUS where the
> unaligned access being made
That's brilliant: got it!
On ARM v5 running the padauk1 test from the test suite:
mjc@
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 01:22:18PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> 09:35 < suihkulokki> _rene_: do you have any idea why graphite2 ftbfs's on arm
> 09:35 < suihkulokki> _rene_: I take it is due to unaligned access since it's
> also failing on sparc?
> [...]
> 10:07 < _rene_> suihkulokki: was n
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 11:01:55PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> graphite2 also FTBFS on alpha and sparc64 at debian-ports. It appears
> to me that the common factor between the build failures (armel,sparc,
> sparc64,alpha) is that they are all RISC CPUs requiring strict alignment
> on memory
graphite2 also FTBFS on alpha and sparc64 at debian-ports. It appears
to me that the common factor between the build failures (armel,sparc,
sparc64,alpha) is that they are all RISC CPUs requiring strict alignment
on memory accesses. I would bet on a misaligned memory access somewhere
in the code,
6 matches
Mail list logo
