From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sa-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com (mailomta21-sa.btinternet.com [213.120.69.27]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7449D385AC1F for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 13:21:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7449D385AC1F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dronecode.org.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dronecode.org.uk Received: from sa-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net ([10.2.38.5]) by sa-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com with ESMTP id <20221023132131.HUMU16833.sa-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com@sa-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net>; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 14:21:31 +0100 Authentication-Results: btinternet.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jonturney@btinternet.com; bimi=skipped X-SNCR-Rigid: 6139417C4000C794 X-Originating-IP: [81.129.146.151] X-OWM-Source-IP: 81.129.146.151 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: jonturney@btinternet.com X-VadeSecure-score: verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrgedtvddgieegucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuueftkffvkffujffvgffngfevqffopdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeflohhnucfvuhhrnhgvhicuoehjohhnrdhtuhhrnhgvhiesughrohhnvggtohguvgdrohhrghdruhhkqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvefggffhtddvtedvvdefudehudektedtkeevfeelgfekkeeifefghefhffduteenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmnecukfhppeekuddruddvledrudegiedrudehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddruddtiegnpdhinhgvthepkedurdduvdelrddugeeirdduhedupdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhonhdrthhurhhnvgihsegurhhonhgvtghouggvrdhorhhgrdhukhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepvddprhgtphhtthhopegthihgfihinhestgihghifihhnrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohephhdrtgdrfhdrmhhuvghllhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomh X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean Received: from [192.168.1.106] (81.129.146.151) by sa-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net (5.8.716.04) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 6139417C4000C794; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 14:21:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 14:21:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0 Subject: Re: libffi: upgrade to libffi-3.4.3 proposed (cygport file attached) Content-Language: en-GB To: =?UTF-8?Q?Hannes_M=c3=bcller?= , The Cygwin Mailing List References: <23b4f0439c8123bffa09fda381929c216aaeeee0.camel@gmail.com> <93f7b9bc-43d1-00de-fca2-5ae762909022@dronecode.org.uk> From: Jon Turney In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1191.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_SPF_HELO,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 08/10/2022 19:26, Hannes Müller wrote: > Hi John, > > I'm not sure. So far I would not recommend to upgrade to libffi-3.4.3 > for Cygwin i686. Thanks. I made this update for x86_64 only. > Currently MSYS2 makes only builts for x86_64. The 32 bit version builts > are only MinGW variants. > > Test for Cygwin on i686 is not in CI of libffi maintainer Anthony > Green, e.g.https://github.com/libffi/libffi/pull/728 > > Maybe you open an Issue on https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues > Anthony Green is very responsive. > > Thanks, > Hannes > > > > Am Samstag, dem 08.10.2022 um 13:47 +0100 schrieb Jon Turney: >> On 04/10/2022 19:11, Hannes Müller wrote: >>> Dear Maintainer(s), >>> >>> libffi is ORPHANED and outdated. >>> >>> Attached a cygport for newest libffi-3.4.3, which needs no extra >>> patches. >>> >>> PS: libffi-3.4.3 is also used on MSYS2 without extra patches. >>> >>> Thanks! >> >> Thanks. >> >> I'm minded to do a NMU of libffi using your revised cygport, but I >> notice that many tests fail on x86 (see [1]).  Is this expected, or >> does >> it indicate some problem there? >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/cygwin/scallywag/actions/runs/3205410540/jobs/5237942271#step:6:2343