Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Some define guards for Solaris are wrong #79731

Closed
kulikjak mannequin opened this issue Dec 21, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Some define guards for Solaris are wrong #79731

kulikjak mannequin opened this issue Dec 21, 2018 · 6 comments
Labels
3.7 (EOL) end of life 3.8 only security fixes build The build process and cross-build

Comments

@kulikjak
Copy link
Mannequin

kulikjak mannequin commented Dec 21, 2018

BPO 35550
Nosy @gpshead, @jcea, @vstinner, @miss-islington, @kulikjak
PRs
  • bpo-35550 fix incorrect Solaris define guards #11275
  • [3.7] bpo-35550: Fix incorrect Solaris define guards (GH-11275) #11383
  • [3.7] bpo-35550: Fix incorrect Solaris define guards (GH-11275) #11383
    		•

    Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2019-01-09.13:13:43.951>
created_at = <Date 2018-12-21.10:08:03.393>
labels = ['3.8', 'build', '3.7']
title = 'Some define guards for Solaris are wrong'
updated_at = <Date 2019-03-29.14:23:16.368>
user = 'https://github.com/kulikjak'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2019-03-29.14:23:16.368>
actor = 'jcea'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2019-01-09.13:13:43.951>
closer = 'vstinner'
components = ['Build']
creation = <Date 2018-12-21.10:08:03.393>
creator = 'kulikjak'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 35550
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['332284', '332788', '332791', '333165', '333301', '333314']
nosy_count = 5.0
nosy_names = ['gregory.p.smith', 'jcea', 'vstinner', 'miss-islington', 'kulikjak']
pr_nums = ['11275', '11383', '11383']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue35550'
versions = ['Python 3.7', 'Python 3.8']
    @kulikjak
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    kulikjak mannequin commented Dec 21, 2018

    Python source code uses on several places ifdef sun or defined(sun) without the underscores, which is not standard compliant and shouldn't be used. Our recent Solaris python build ended up skipping these sections resulting in some obvious problems.

    Defines should check for __sun instead.

    (link: http://nadeausoftware.com/articles/2012/01/c_c_tip_how_use_compiler_predefined_macros_detect_operating_system#Solaris)

    @kulikjak kulikjak mannequin added 3.7 (EOL) end of life build The build process and cross-build labels Dec 21, 2018
    @gpshead
    Copy link
    Member

    gpshead commented Dec 31, 2018

    New changeset 6f9bc72 by Gregory P. Smith (Jakub Kulík) in branch 'master':
    bpo-35550: Fix incorrect Solaris define guards (GH-11275)
    6f9bc72

    @gpshead gpshead added the 3.8 only security fixes label Dec 31, 2018
    @gpshead gpshead self-assigned this Dec 31, 2018
    @miss-islington
    Copy link
    Contributor

    New changeset d823443 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.7':
    bpo-35550: Fix incorrect Solaris define guards (GH-11275)
    d823443

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member

    vstinner commented Jan 7, 2019

    Do you want to fix the 2.7 branch as well?

    @gpshead gpshead removed their assignment Jan 8, 2019
    @kulikjak
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    kulikjak mannequin commented Jan 9, 2019

    We are building previous versions of Python with Solaris Studio which works with define guards as they are right now. 3.7 is first version build with gcc. We don't plan to switch to gcc on 2.7 and so it doesn't affect us.

    But I guess if this fix can be done easily, it would be correct to do.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member

    vstinner commented Jan 9, 2019

    We don't plan to switch to gcc on 2.7 and so it doesn't affect us.

    Ok. I close the issue. If anyone wants to fix 2.7, please go ahead :-)

    @vstinner vstinner closed this as completed Jan 9, 2019
    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Assignees
    No one assigned
    Labels
    3.7 (EOL) end of life 3.8 only security fixes build The build process and cross-build
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    No branches or pull requests
    3 participants
    @gpshead @vstinner @miss-islington