-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
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
Linux mummer 3.23-pl5321hdbdd923_19 broke #49899
Comments
Test works on macOS ARM:
I don't have immediate access to a Linux ARM machine, but would assume that broke like the x86 Linux pacakge. |
linux-64 build 19 has been marked broken. |
Thank you! Let's leave this issue open as ideally we'd be able to fix the recipe again for Linux. |
@peterjc I played around with this a bit on linux-64, using the broken build from the PR. I can recreate that error you got, but it seems like after running the same command a few times it seems to start working. Very strange. Have you found any possible leads for why the last PR broke it? |
Actually I take it back. Even when it appeared to work, the delta file it created was pretty much empty compared to the one from build 18. |
I would guess something in the compiler tool chain changed and perhaps this is the result of an undefined bit of C behaviour or something. If mummer 3 was still under active development I'd be asking the authors and/or trawling their issue tracker. I couldn't see anything in the recipe to explain this. The new patches are restricted to osx (to make clang happy), so should have no effect on Linux. I did modify the Perl hashbangs, which includes the main |
@peterjc what was the reason for restricting the patches to osx? When I build locally on linux-64, I get those implicit declaration warnings (e.g. Those warnings are in the logs from the last Azure linux-64 build from your original PR, but my test PR doesn't have that and that package works fine on my same linux-64 while build 19 is broken. I'm wondering if something in the environment changed, but I can't find anything obvious. In any case, if there's no harm in including the patches for Linux, I'm thinking of removing the Also the Let me know your thoughts, thanks. |
Applying the explicit declaration patches on Linux sounds fine - and if it silences warnings, great. I only applied the patch on osx because it seemed that clang treated them as failures. i.e. I was trying not to change anything on Linux as it was working. We could explicitly make the file/sed loop which checks the hash-bangs conditional on osx? |
Unexpected side effect of #49870 which fixed macOS Intel and added macOS ARM.
Build 19 is working nicely for me on Intel Mac:
But sadly this has broken on Linux, root cause currently unknown:
Reverting to build 18 works:
Test case using build 19 fails:
In the short term, can we mark the Linux build 19 files as broken?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: