On 03/08/2011 09:07 PM, Till Maas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:20:10PM +0000, Niels de Vos wrote: > >> I don's know what the best way would be to mark FTBFS bugs as ARM >> specific. But we sure rely on the packagers for fixing the >> build-issues for their package. >> >> Maybe there should be a FTBFS-ARM tracker-bug? > > Actually package maintainers are not expected to fix bugs for > build-issues on secondary archs, except for accepting patches that fix > them. How do we get ARM to be one of the primaries? :-) One particular good thing that comes out of ARM porting is that on <= ARMv6 alignment errors aren't auto-corrected, which means that it gives a wake-up call to all the people that are making unsound assumptions. My recent shock was when chasing an alignment error in e2fsprogs. There are unaligned char arrays all over the place being used as buffers and having structs cast into them. How any of the extfs tools ever worked on ARM in the first pace is nothing short of a miracle. I'm told that SPARC has the same alignment restriction issue, but the GCC backend for SPARC automatically aligns all arrays to a suitable word boundary. The ARM backend doesn't do this, nor is there a compile time switch to make it do that. The only reason I can think of for it being automatic on SPARC but not on ARM is because ARM was until recently a very embedded arch, and thus memory space was deemed more important than holding the programmer by the hand. Gordan _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
