c++ -O2 -pipe -DHAVE_WCHAR_H -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DHAVE_SYS_TIME_H -DHAVE_SYS_PARAM_H -DHAVE_SYS_MOUNT_H -Qunused-arguments -fstack-protector -Werror -Wall -Wno-format-y2k -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wpointer-arith -Wno-uninitialized -Wno-empty-body -Wno-string-plus-int -Wno-tautological-compare -Wno-unused-value -Wno-parentheses-equality -Wno-unused-function -Wno-conversion -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -fno-strict-aliasing -DHAVE_WCHAR_H -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DHAVE_SYS_TIME_H -DHAVE_SYS_PARAM_H -DHAVE_SYS_MOUNT_H -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/h -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/jpeg -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/ole -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/basics -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/ri_image -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/fpx -I/usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/. -I/usr/local/include -D_UNIX -c /usr/ports/graphics/libf px/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/entry.cxx -o entry.o In file included from /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/dir.cxx:12: In file included from /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/msfhead.cxx:18: In file included from /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/h/msf.hxx:131: /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/h/dir.hxx:144:11: error: private field '_bpad' is not used [-Werror,-Wunused-private-field] BYTE _bpad[CBDIRPAD]; ^ In file included from /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/dir.cxx:12: In file included from /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/msfhead.cxx:18: In file included from /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/h/msf.hxx:131: 1 error generated. /usr/ports/graphics/libfpx/work/libfpx-1.3.1-1/oless/h/dir.hxx:144:11: error: private field '_bpad' is not used [-Werror,-Wunused-private-field] BYTE _bpad[CBDIRPAD]; ^ 1 error generated. *** [dir.So] Error code 1 *** [dir.o] Error code 1 2 errors *** [do-build] Error code 1
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->mi mi@aldan.algebra.com => mi@ (via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool)
Maintainer of graphics/libfpx, Please note that PR ports/173851 has just been submitted. If it contains a patch for an upgrade, an enhancement or a bug fix you agree on, reply to this email stating that you approve the patch and a committer will take care of it. The full text of the PR can be found at: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/173851 -- Edwin Groothuis via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool edwin@FreeBSD.org
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Awaiting maintainers feedback (via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool)
State Changed From-To: feedback->closed Committed.
I had a reason to hold off on this one, but, indeed, have failed to make my reservations public (I only discussed it with the submitter and one more colleague privately) creating an appearance of a timeout. I'm curious, how did you test the resulting library? The removed field, judging by its name and the way its size is determined, was meant to make the size of the containing class match that of some other structure. Removing the field may now break some assumption somewhere else in the code... You did test, didn't you? Do the ImageMagick's self-tests succeed despite the change of libfpx, for example? -mi
Mikhail T. wrote: > I had a reason to hold off on this one, but, indeed, have failed to > make my reservations public (I only discussed it with the submitter > and one more colleague privately) creating an appearance of a timeout. The PR submitter is me. I didn't received any email from you. > > I'm curious, how did you test the resulting library? The removed > field, judging by its name and the way its size is determined, was > meant to make the size of the containing class match that of some > other structure. Removing the field may now break some assumption > somewhere else in the code... > > You did test, didn't you? Do the ImageMagick's self-tests succeed > despite the change of libfpx, for example? Yes. I run the the ImageMagick validation suite. Here's the result: make check-TESTS check-local PASS: tests/validate-compare.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-composite.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-convert.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-identify.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-import.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-montage.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 2 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 3 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 4 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 5 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 6 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 7 PASS: tests/validate-pipe.tap 8 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 2 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 3 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 4 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 5 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 6 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 7 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 8 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 9 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 10 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 11 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 12 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 13 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 14 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 15 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 16 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 17 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 18 PASS: tests/validate-colorspace.tap 19 PASS: tests/validate-stream.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-formats-in-memory.tap 1 PASS: tests/validate-formats-on-disk.tap 1 PASS: tests/drawtest.tap 1 PASS: tests/wandtest.tap 1 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 1 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 2 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 3 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 4 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 5 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 6 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 7 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 8 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 9 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 10 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 11 PASS: Magick++/tests/tests.tap 12 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 1 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 2 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 3 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 4 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 5 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 6 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 7 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 8 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 9 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 10 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 11 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 12 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 13 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 14 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 15 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 16 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 17 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 18 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 19 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 20 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 21 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 22 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 23 PASS: Magick++/demo/demos.tap 24 make all-am ============================================================================ Testsuite summary for ImageMagick 6.7.9 ============================================================================ # TOTAL: 74 # PASS: 74 # SKIP: 0 # XFAIL: 0 # FAIL: 0 # XPASS: 0 # ERROR: 0 ============================================================================ > -mi Kevin
On 06.12.2012 02:02, Kevin Lo wrote: > The PR submitter is me. I didn't received any email from you. Indeed... I confused your PR with the 173591 <http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/173591>, of which yours is a duplicate. >> > >> >I'm curious, how did you test the resulting library? The removed >> >field, judging by its name and the way its size is determined, was >> >meant to make the size of the containing class match that of some >> >other structure. Removing the field may now break some assumption >> >somewhere else in the code... >> > >> >You did test, didn't you? Do the ImageMagick's self-tests succeed >> >despite the change of libfpx, for example? > Yes. I run the the ImageMagick validation suite. Here's the result: Well, Ok then. Thank you. Please, close the 137591 too. Thank you, -mi
Mikhail T. wrote: > On 06.12.2012 02:02, Kevin Lo wrote: > > > The PR submitter is me. I didn't received any email from you. > Indeed... I confused your PR with the 173591, of which yours is a > duplicate. > > > > > > > > I'm curious, how did you test the resulting library? The removed > > > > field, judging by its name and the way its size is determined, was > > > > meant to make the size of the containing class match that of some > > > > other structure. Removing the field may now break some assumption > > > > somewhere else in the code... > > > > > > > > You did test, didn't you? Do the ImageMagick's self-tests succeed > > > > despite the change of libfpx, for example? > > Yes. I run the the ImageMagick validation suite. Here's the result: > Well, Ok then. Thank you. Please, close the 137591 too. Thank you, Done. Thanks. > -mi Kevin