Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Re: ocaml build failure on ia64 with gcc4 #3751

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Aug 11, 2005 · 1 comment
Closed

Re: ocaml build failure on ia64 with gcc4 #3751

vicuna opened this issue Aug 11, 2005 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Aug 11, 2005

Original bug ID: 3751
Reporter: administrator
Status: closed
Resolution: fixed
Priority: normal
Severity: minor
Category: ~DO NOT USE (was: OCaml general)

Bug description

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:13:13PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

Hi,

the ocaml debian package fails to build on ia64 with the new gcc, with
errors in byterun/interp.c:
gcc -DCAML_NAME_SPACE -O -fno-defer-pop -Wall -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_REENTRANT -c -o interp.o interp.c
interp.c: In function 'caml_interprete':
interp.c:297: error: invalid lvalue in increment
interp.c:299: error: invalid lvalue in increment
interp.c:301: error: invalid lvalue in increment
interp.c:303: error: invalid lvalue in increment
...

(A full build log is available at
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=ocaml&ver=3.08.3-6&arch=ia64&stamp=1123386582&file=log&as=raw)

The problem seems to be the "Next" macro, which is different on ia64
than on other archs:

ifdef DEBUG

define Next goto next_instr

else

by sumply erasing these three lines :

ifdef ia64

define Next goto *(void *)(jumptbl_base + *((uint32 *) pc)++)

else

define Next goto *(void *)(jumptbl_base + *pc++)

as well as this one obviously :)

endif

endif

The package builds without problem on one of debian's ia64 boxes (merulo
inside the sid chroot), so this should solve it for sid. Not sure about
pre-gcc 4.0 and older backports though.

I believe that using the following on ia64 instead should work, but
since I am no expert, I'd like to get the caml team's advice :)
(I don't really understand why this cast is there, and why it's there
only on ia64, but it has been added in 2000, as part of the ia64 port)
#define Next goto (void)(jumptbl_base + (uint32)*pc++)

Just remove the cast, pc is code_t which is defined as uint32, so ...

Alternately, I wonder if opcode_t could be defined as uint32 instead of
int32, which would probably solve this problem (assuming it doesn't need
to be signed).

Heu, maybe i misread the code then. you sure it is not uint32 ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Aug 11, 2005

Comment author: administrator

see also #3749, #3750

@vicuna vicuna closed this as completed Sep 24, 2005
@vicuna vicuna added the bug label Mar 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant