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 4Nq/DIfkVV9rYAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2020 07:43:03 +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 WBiMCIfkVV9/JAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2020 07:43:03 +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 65C6494013C for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 07:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nmbug.tethera.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B2329A1D; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mout02.posteo.de (mout02.posteo.de [185.67.36.66]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1F5A29307 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:42:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05B642400FD for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:42:43 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1599464566; bh=AdQWRNMTDnmPmDcPqsdqCfubfJFjBq3FqoNjLcqAvyU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=T1c9TQFQLJq2YMUKNOYqhxUcCKXsn0w2zVEKspKZCOPO+CFLZjsV4iHkISU99rKHK gwuJTRxs+UPzLDk+NnyeMzN/PPXgHTN9fOSz0mIbnJrDfFloa6HVuGrPg/neWG2mQt wgRWhia7Kck42zxpuBgX4+Bh28BdtV+RusC5MrzliCSQHq9ZmInn3pCsJHGcoJXKN5 Jby5jwKlD1xhmjaQCn3vMtX6uy1GwH1LBd2P5kWzTp5TPk82ZMUh3hzQ+MpNIJfi3I SDVRq8neCtK5NQ3keJZnT0wu8ZgkQ19w9tHCVDKpa4mqv6dGE+ifppEpzQEpP6RAnI 58M60/hdmsW8g== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4BlKxt55stz6tmB; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:42:42 +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 09:42:31 +0200 Message-ID: <874koahw2g.fsf@cgc-instruments.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID-Hash: JXU3EX5LTIGIY462CU3UHM3FNKSMYUF3 X-Message-ID-Hash: JXU3EX5LTIGIY462CU3UHM3FNKSMYUF3 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="===============4754430352931912579==" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (body hash did not verify) header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=T1c9TQFQ; 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: T/ZzlDSKWkqG --===============4754430352931912579== 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+IOiSay5jLDOAYQ0cUFAl9V5GcWHGRhbi5jZXJt YWtAcG9zdGVvLm5ldAAKCRDmMsM4BhDRxf1WD/0exrVC3oPdxPlGg4i7TmbYeaoA E9Bj2HOpNzAgNfGiSE50AcvJcQz9202O3x7TA2V5mafL+zjXo4SCOjKtK9ewM3n3 x4+Z3l4MadgcNuvMLgCeHTPpKbUH//TXYETZDT2lzHjxFAUKJGhVFcpYOSp4cJIP CbuGGXLCMFoF18om68ahfAAUgAez5C/4ZofTc5y88TGZ23FnDcZfFcZt/AANDTCo RZV3MYFUMvSg/uV4qcI0JVjPagtMBF1c8ZWuUNcx19pdQWVxOe2/Nve/8R4ufOyS T7XGxN5gI7La3MKBqbOm4Yla3Uvtjtv62kVAWa2g2+bVQpYaKz/P840ICHQdIG6y sm2+wYVRxt+XNE5JJOZBVwvu9WbPIp6Q1rB1ZCg+sZAFiVlW4MtTaK3G7M/fQr64 Xc7zCwMMEz/Krvb0bHmQ2JK20xRRzBJUdrxyrnjbeZDylgK2+EmEo/+cvQFkXC/A L90RNggmW9m9++otdO6BTwy91tfZSoRC/L6Ud6xXk5rUSoYTC5NjMK/EVHUri93b pZAy0XcTYAfC8ufEXQkosM2ulayqsGlnZgRXudFbkUr8dpLo1zCAIO2+16nTOBIz 1LkfNByGcB6z9SbuT4AJ7qB5568HNMGo0UNkoIAKIgW6ub7P+61KrmbiqMAoVHXQ huP5XWsZcm1e8/6bkw== =tFrF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============4754430352931912579== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============4754430352931912579==--