On 15 September 2015 at 16:46, David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com> wrote: > > On 2015-09-15 06:45, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> >> On 9 September 2015 at 15:19, Michael Cree <mcree at orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>> >>> Pulseaudio fails to build on the Alpha architecture due to a failure >>> in the volume-test of the test suite. I had reported this to the >>> Debian bug tracker [1] but the maintainer has asked that I forward the >>> patch to this mail list. The failure in volume-test occurs because it >>> is compiled with -ffast-math which implies -ffinite-math-only of which >>> the gcc manual states that it optimizes for floating-point arithmetic >>> with the assumption that arguments and results are not NaNs or >>> +/-infinity, and futher notes that it may result in incorrect output. >>> On the Alpha platform that is somewhat an understatement as the use of >>> non-finite floating-point arithmetic with -ffinite-math-only results in >>> a floating-point exception and the termination of the program. >>> >>> The volume-test converts volumes into decibels (so a zero volume >>> becomes a negative infinity) and proceeds to add two volumes (in >>> decibels), thus does arithmetic with non-finite floating point numbers >>> despite being compiled with -ffast-math! >>> >>> I attach a patch that protects against the arithmetic with non-finite >>> numbers for your consideration. With that patch the test-suite passes >>> on Alpha. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Michael. >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798248 >> >> >> Thanks for the fix! I've pushed this out to our next branch (since >> we're frozen for the 7.0 release, it'll only make it out in 8.0). > > > Hi Arun, > > Thanks for picking it up, but I think this is a typical example of a bug fix > that should go in 7.0 even though we're frozen. Not merging it only leads to > more buggy 7.0 release, and more distro patching for downstreams. Since this patch is for a test, and is rather trivial, I don't particularly mind either way. In general, though, I view each extra patch as a risk of regression when we are frozen, and as they add up, you start to need to do another RC, delaying the release. This is why I advocate a stricter (and thus, imo shorter) freeze period. -- Arun
