> I suggested activiz.net because Mathieu had mentioned it in this bug > thread. I expect it would be a good test of gccxml. But > insighttoolkit is also a good test. I can't recall what wrapping is > enabled, but did you successfully run the ITK test suite of python > wrapping? > > Of the others on your list: do they make much use of gccxml output? > Are there tests for that?
I don't know the answers. All I did was blindly run dpkg-buildpackage on the packages I listed. However, a quick google/grep suggests that python wrapping is only available for insighttoolkit4, which I haven't built yet. The build logs at buildd.debian.org might give an idea of what tests are run. This article (http://www.kitware.com/blog/home/post/888) suggests that upstream has already switched to CastXML, though Debian's current insighttoolkit4 Build-Depends on gccxml. There seems to be an obvious "(un)signed char" problem with insighttoolkit4: lots of complex<char>, which is a dubious thing when char is unsigned. It'll be interesting to see whether insighttoolkit4 can be built on arm64 once the "(un)signed char" problem is fixed. Clearly the build script for insighttoolkit4 runs some kind of tests because they are mentioned in this bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=724711 The ghastly arm64/ppc64el kludge has a reasonable chance of working, perhaps, because those two architectures seem to have the same sizes and alignments and signedness of basic types: https://wiki.debian.org/ArchitectureSpecificsMemo If there is a critical difference between the two architectures, it would be interesting to know what it is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
