On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 01:53:26AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: >> > On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 01:21:59AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: >> >> > reopen 712956 >> >> > thanks >> >> > >> >> >> nvidia-texture-tools (2.0.8-1+dfsg-4) unstable; urgency=low >> >> >> . >> >> >> [ Fabio Pedretti ] >> >> >> * Add armel and armhf build support (Closes: #721972) >> >> >> * Remove -march=athlon64 from CXXFLAGS (Closes: #713966, #712956) >> >> > >> >> > This is clealy the wrong bug you're closing. It's assigned to >> >> > 0ad. >> >> > >> >> > 0.0.14-2 is still using -msse -march=i686 on i386 >> >> >> >> See explanation by upstream here [1]. If compiling with -march=i686 is >> >> strictly not allowed on Debian i386, I can just simply stop building >> >> 0ad for i386, although I'm not sure if that's necessary at all; the >> >> package has been sitting in the archive for over a year and I still >> >> haven't gotten any complaints about 0ad not running on any Debian >> >> user's i386 machine. >> > >> > I don't know if having i686 is acceptable or not. But I currently >> > see no good reason for it. [1] is my own comment. The only reply >> > to that is that they still use the legacy functions, and no reply >> > as to why they need to keep using it and can't move to the new >> > ones. >> >> Err, sorry, should have linked to comment #7 instead in that ticket. [1] >> >> " >> We wouldn't run on an actual 486 due to use of several newer CPU >> instructions, one of which is the CAS in ia32.cpp. If indeed we have >> to compile with -march=i486, which sounds like a last resort, the CAS >> could be replaced with GCC-specific assembly, and we'd have a decent >> hope of compiling successfully. >> " > > CAS being a compare and swap? Which is the atomic function they want > to use?
I don't know... >> To me that sounds reasonable enough as to why we should be building >> 0ad with -march=i686. > > Anyway, I have no idea if g++ supports those new atomic functions > without -march=i686, but I at least hope so. This is all beyond my knowledge, so the most I can do is just relay messages back and forth between you and upstream if you have any further questions... >> >> > It wasn't using -march=athlon64 on amd64 before either as far as I >> >> > know but had problem running on at least one of the buildds. >> >> >> >> The original issue was that nvidia-texture-tools was compiled with >> >> -march=athlon64, which caused one of the amd64 buildds to complain >> >> about an "Illegal instruction" when trying to run 0ad's test suite >> >> when building 0ad. There's a relevant issue filed against upstream >> >> nvidia-texture-tools about this as well. [2] >> > >> > So that was #713966 and that was fixed in 0ad with the 0.0.14-2 >> > uploaded? >> >> Yes, should be fixed now, but again, since I don't have any hardware >> where I can reproduce this locally, I suppose the only way to prove >> that this is fixed is to have 0ad 0.0.14-2 be rebuilt on barber. > > I've triggerd that it gets build on barber, you should have a log > about that in half an hour I guess. Yep, built successfully [1] on barber, hence I think it's safe to say that the bug is fixed (or that the original FTBFS issue isn't reproducible anymore). Vincent [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=0ad&arch=amd64&ver=0.0.14-2&stamp=1378546204 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
