From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id TpTLAS3lVV/LeAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2020 07:45:49 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id wD+pOCzlVV//KwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2020 07:45:48 +0000 Received: from mail.notmuchmail.org (nmbug.tethera.net [144.217.243.247]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7737D94013C for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 07:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nmbug.tethera.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E0D29A1D; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5A32931A for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:45:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05BE6160063 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:45:39 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1599464740; bh=RQ2Uqvd9wo9az8TIFFgT0OG7IoIMH4oblF867wjeGPE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=OJ2/r0AW4DyQmx+DHfQZDg3cnYmgLJYbS6EuD/tg0vH+Ke16EUfyaYkGsf7NnRKrk 67Gb0JV8BQ5cOTRjiC59hUVCUj7b+Bv0k29HJZBXBm743K3MYRVBS/OXAfRJq7b0cH Aed9/bkv7JWNqsVqE9yFFK3XEXRGtJaZHJFopm2xbzihrgkgJeTVWN2c58AJHeiBsW YAzKGR8FeNj32QbjhAuxlhyQS+zF7VLox+zPSg5DgYoHs3ZiZWP23KiN20WAS/0jWf SoyI6tq3Qb8LdsQbHqn683Xr8yzCpt8Y34U5OnRpW81QSrGRIAWwe5W1xuH9W+0oHX MPezQhGBdzMOA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4BlL1G5GYtz9rxj; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:45:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Dan =?utf-8?B?xIxlcm3DoWs=?= To: David Bremner Subject: Re: Last call for NEWS entries for 0.31 In-Reply-To: <87o8mpr5w6.fsf@tethera.net> References: <87lfiehb92.fsf@tethera.net> <874kp0gpnr.fsf@tethera.net> <871rk4gosx.fsf@tethera.net> <87k0xqg7c7.fsf@tethera.net> <874kol7i3b.fsf@tethera.net> <87pn785pvr.fsf@tethera.net> <877dtd7w3g.fsf@cgc-instruments.com> <87o8mpr5w6.fsf@tethera.net> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 09:45:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87363uhvxq.fsf@cgc-instruments.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID-Hash: 23OY2T7HNKVB5KMPWIE2LRV6SUQWJEGF X-Message-ID-Hash: 23OY2T7HNKVB5KMPWIE2LRV6SUQWJEGF X-MailFrom: dan.cermak@posteo.net X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-notmuch.notmuchmail.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header CC: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.2.1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1748290824353835064==" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (body hash did not verify) header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=OJ2/r0AW; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (strict)" header.from=posteo.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 144.217.243.247 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Spam-Score: -1.97 X-TUID: 2AGNcJtSY4Ez --===============1748290824353835064== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Bremner writes: > Dan =C4=8Cerm=C3=A1k writes: > >> Hi David, >> >> David Bremner writes: >> >> I have started seeing consistent test failures with rc2 on ppc64 and >> ppc64le: >> - on both platforms "get total messages with closed database" from >> T568-lib-thread fails > > I don't see this failure on ppc64el on Debian [0]. Perhaps there is some > toolchain difference? This specific issue has now disappeared on both ppc64 and ppc64el, so I guess it was just some toolchain breakage that got fixed in the meantime. > >> - on ppc64 "comparing existing to exported symbols" from >> T360-symbol-hiding fails as well > > This is more-or-less known [1]. The problem is that ppc64 reports > defined functions as 'D' in nm output. At least on ELF architectures, > readelf -Ws is more reliable. How many people would using readelf break > things for? Currently the test does not run on macOS, afaik. So it is ok if I just skip this test on ppc64? Or can anything be done about this (I must admit that I have relatively little insight into this)? Cheers, Dan --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJKBAEBCAA0FiEE/2KDnDCX6+IOiSay5jLDOAYQ0cUFAl9V5REWHGRhbi5jZXJt YWtAcG9zdGVvLm5ldAAKCRDmMsM4BhDRxeyJD/9G9UrSyR1+eupFsON/9mYGaCxm m8lx8qrqhNt0PjTAUKaQ60qgvMpXmXfoLfjiCes2lo/DA6tWWPc/IGhplOL1E/QU 3ogZd2TAezygoIDtcXvk/rfXI+EqFHimlTLU21rBT3ttLPe6b6fopunqp5/irzcO MVduJRNxenHzVpAdakp5EL5CZmh0j9+4k5IzBHTs8F8YcJWUHPa+yxGQ+htZYoxZ uoPLvn225WqMTGJjRi6fz/50wSAKDhxVTh2PWMTOYp12mvV88/nCAFPr9jiQl//8 +EjcsQlT/2E8BxWXlauihenSBnUQZlhbnIYKUj07//1fRNLJwC3f3ky30TXot/zS ZWYQV5S9T4BZa1IKcWJ4coak5EO3TYf5p+vrM5/A1UYT6PDoMkdIDCtyZfWDod+/ wv1vVWKgrec3U7ymVDnBOB0EkYG30v4RpD/fVctUr+2CfiZTtEIU73BcstKrORho hhXX/9rmFLTbLeR30Tzu8BemBJtbwTJjkEhuhXH1AIVk3hjH1eFfq0B7dcMnbTeW L/30juyi9/ozvwzjPjJfWNXSuAiJoK+HqS29tdwjr8tFpCjmOb/ujD+0spARfOlh aKaVDfThA6V5j4+yeILwEBd86VHQDuukhb8RD9EHxGWXtnAGx4nNTwgoey78n0TU fguE/DRn1zRsv4mEXA== =6lHv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============1748290824353835064== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============1748290824353835064==--