Not sure if this is WAF 2.0 related - it is not handling at least one "bi-endian" platform correctly now.
Christopher O Cowan
Christopher.O.Cowan at ibm.com
Fri Sep 7 15:19:30 UTC 2018
Thanks for that link. I'm not finding the 88216e6 hash in the repo.
Where is it?
I'm having an offline convo with Martin Schwenke about bogus CTDB packets
being read off of the queues. I'm now thinking that perhaps byte ordering
is lurking in the weeds.
Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org> wrote on 09/06/2018 10:51:43 AM:
> From: Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org>
> To: Christopher O Cowan <Christopher.O.Cowan at ibm.com>
> Cc: samba tech <samba-technical at lists.samba.org>
> Date: 09/06/2018 10:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Not sure if this is WAF 2.0 related - it is not
> handling at least one "bi-endian" platform correctly now.
> On to, 06 syys 2018, Christopher O Cowan via samba-technical wrote:
> > I'm still working on other WAF 2.0 problems that are preventing my waf
> > configure from completing now, so I don't have the c4che files.
> > Here are the snippets from the config.log, showing the problem:
> > (See attached file: pre-waf20-config.log)(See attached file:
> > endian-fail-config.log)
> Thanks, so the end result is the same -- tests for LITTLE endian, BIG
> endian, LITTLE endian runtime are failing, BIG endian runtime succeeding
> in both cases. Looks like the end result is that a define for the last
> one didn't set.
> I think my INVALID URI REMOVED
> fix this issue. You'd need to add a compiler fix for AIX similar to what
> Andreas did in 88216e63c97591685a6b9a0b8bca56c02abc767d on top of that
> but define/undefine fixes I did should be able to help here.
> / Alexander Bokovoy
More information about the samba-technical