Re: [PATCH 1/2] site/arm-common: alignment values for guin32, guin64 and unsigned long

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 07:46 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:44:05PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:08:47PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >> Hash: SHA1
> > >>
> > >> On 05/02/2012 07:09 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:59:45PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > >> >> From: Tomas Frydrych <tomas@sleepfive.com>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> These are required to build recent versions of glib-2.0
> > >> >
> > >> > similar patch is needed also for other site files, just noticed it
> > >> > while building for qemux86-64
> > >>
> > >> would you also include rest of architectures too please ?
> > >
> > > I did for x86 and x86-64, for the rest I don't know the right values or
> > > care enough to find them somewhere.
> > 
> > will this upgrade break glib for architectures that have wrong values
> > for these vars ?
> > if answer is yes then I think we should do that before applying this
> > upgrade otherwise
> > it will be a regression
> 
> glib-2.32.1 will build there fine, but glib-2.32.2 will fail during
> do_configure, so yes someone should add those.

Lets be really clear about this, glib 2.32.1 will build fine but crash
at runtime due to divide by zero errors.

I'm not taking any glib patches until we have this working on the core
architectures we support.

Please can people not send upgrades which knowingly break things. I'm
fine having a fairly aggressive set of updates but anything with serious
breakage like this will get reverted and cause me to consider patches
from those person long and hard with a lot of testing before merging in
future.

Cheers,

Richard