On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Yes, implicit padding is definitely bad. I didn't realize I even had
> it in there, although I'm glad my STATIC_ASSERT did its job. There are
;-)
> various references to patches, however I haven't seen any. Perhaps
> they're lost in my inbox, or they were never sent to mesa-dev, or
> something else. Could the patch author (or another interested party)
> send it as a proper patch to mesa-dev? Assuming it doesn't break x86,
> happy to check it in.
Oh fun. I’m the patch author, and it was here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=37;filename=mesa_10.2.3-1%2Bm68k.1.debdiff;att=1;bug=728053
I’ve attached the part you’re probably most interested in.
Thanks,
//mirabilos
--
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font. -- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"
From: Thorsten Glaser <t...@debian.org
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:04:07 +0100
Subject: Fix FTBFS on m68k due to invalid struct alignment assumptions
Debian-Bug: #728053
Make alignment assumptions explicit by inserting correct padding,
as upstream already did for other parts of the structure.
--- a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/nv84_video_bsp.c
+++ b/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/nv84_video_bsp.c
@@ -67,10 +67,15 @@ struct iparm {
uint32_t field_is_ref; // 04 // bit0: top, bit1: bottom
uint8_t is_long_term; // 08
uint8_t non_existing; // 09
+ uint8_t u0a; // 0a
+ uint8_t u0b; // 0b
uint32_t frame_idx; // 0c
uint32_t field_order_cnt[2]; // 10
uint32_t mvidx; // 18
uint8_t field_pic_flag; // 1c
+ uint8_t u1d; // 1d
+ uint8_t u1e; // 1e
+ uint8_t u1f; // 1f
// 20
} refs[0x10]; // 1e0
} ipicparm; // 150
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
