From owner-freebsd-apache@freebsd.org Sat Mar 14 22:29:36 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-apache@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCE62660B3 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48fy0w2mLnz4MGK for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 3CB202660B2; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: apache@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A92B2660B1 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48fy0v5nMjz4MFj for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC7F25E25 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 02EMTZds038357 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:35 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 02EMTZN0038356 for apache@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:35 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: apache@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 242680] devel/subversion Fails to build on FreeBSD 12.1-RELEASE-p1 32 bit: libapr-1.so: undefined reference to `__sync_* Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:35 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: lfmorrison@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: apache@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? merge-quarterly? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-apache@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Support of apache-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:29:36 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D242680 --- Comment #9 from lfmorrison@gmail.com --- The patch for this problem should actually be applied to apr1, not subversi= on itself. I've had a patch for apr1 that seems promising, but it was messy because it added new content to the configure script - and looking at the FreeBSD port maintenance guide, they recommended not applying patches directly against configure, but rather against configure.in and adding USES=3Dautoreconf to = the port's makefile. However, there's already a patch in this port which is applied directly aga= inst configure (not configure.in) and I wasn't sure what would be the correct wa= y to make all these moving parts play nicely together. Basically, my patch takes the existing test in configure.in which checks for compiler built-in atomic operations on an unsigned long, and duplicates it = with a guaranteed 64-bit type. (Autoconf can already ensures that the necessary symbol to represent a 64-bit type is available for the purposes of running = this test.) Then, the next part of my patch was applied against include/arch/unix/apr_arch_atomic.h. In the section dealing with checking to see if autoconf was able to detect the presence of built-in atomics general= ly, it also checked to see if autoconf was able to detect 64-bit atomics specifically; if it did not, then the patch would define NEED_ATOMICS_GENERIC64. Next, in atomic/unix/builtins.c I modified apr_atomic_init() to optionally cascade into apr__atomic_generic64_init() if NEED_ATOMICS_GENERIC64 was defined. Finally, in atomic/unix/builtins64.c, the check for USE_ATOMICS_BUILTINS was replaced with a test for both the presence of USE_ATOMICS_BUILTINS and the absence of NEED_ATOMICS_GENERIC64. This all worked, but I was concerned about any corner cases I might be miss= ing because of the fact that I was overwriting the previously patched version of configure with my patched version of configure.in together with autoreconf. I also didn't have ready access to another platform to test and confirm that things were still running properly there. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.=