On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 20:52 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 26/02/19 19:42 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 14:46 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On 26/02/19 13:28 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Sérgio Basto: > > > > > > > > > The key was "can't represent -1 with an unsigned number" , I > > > > > add > > > > > some sign char to the code [1] and it fix the FTBFS > > > > > > > > > > Thanks , > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/sergiomb/rpms/gdcm/blob/master/f/gdcm-2.8.8-fix-narrow.patch > > > > > > > > Please note that this patch changes the mangled names of > > > > template > > > > instantiations and thus breaks ABI. I'm not sure if this > > > > appropriate > > > > for a Fedora downstream-only patch, but maybe it's okay based > > > > on > > > > what > > > > the package does. > > > > > > I was going to say the same thing. It looks very wrong to me. > > > > > > It would be better to fix the use of the class, not the > > > definition of > > > the class. i.e. change String<EOF, ...> to String<(char)EOF, > > > ...>. > > > > > > Or stop assuming that EOF can fit in a character type and use > > > something like String<(char)-1, ...> instead. Otherwise if EOF > > > happens > > > to be a value like -191 then (char)EOF will produce the character > > > 'A' > > > which is probably not what it wants as a delimiter. EOF isn't > > > going > > > to > > > equal -191 for glibc, but it's still bogus to use EOF there IMO. > > > > Is stdio.h that defines EOF as -1 , so if we what work with files > > and > > use EOF character, we need use signed chars, though . > > I don't understand what you're saying here, sorry. stdio.h defines EOF as -1 , so if we want work with files and use EOF character, we need use signed chars, though . > If you're saying any code using files needs to use signed char, > that's > not true. You just need to stop trying to use EOF where a char is > needed. EOF is not a char, it's an int. ok > > This code is just part of directory Testing > > But your patch is to Source/Common/gdcmString.h which is not just a > test, right? aah yes now I understood the point . Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
