From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 12 08:45:26 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3B6106564A for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 08:45:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E458FC1A for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 08:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p4C8jMpj082562; Thu, 12 May 2011 18:45:23 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:45:22 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: Jeremy Chadwick In-Reply-To: <20110512065945.GA55199@icarus.home.lan> Message-ID: <20110512180918.W58178@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <4DCB7962.6090706@snafu.de> <20110512061312.GA54574@icarus.home.lan> <4DCB81EF.2080104@snafu.de> <20110512065945.GA55199@icarus.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, joerg_surmann Subject: Re: can't update libzip-0.9.3 to libzip-0.10 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:45:26 -0000 On Wed, 11 May 2011, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:45:03AM +0200, joerg_surmann wrote: > > Hey Jeremy, > > > > Ok i'll put the files in a attachment > > on the end from this email. > > [...snip...] > [attachment: zipconf.h] > > Oh dear. I'm not sure what to make of this: > > > #ifndef _HAD_ZIPCONF_H > > #define _HAD_ZIPCONF_H > > > > /* > > zipconf.h -- platform specific include file > > > > This file was generated automatically by ./make_zipconf.sh > > based on ../config.h. > > */ > > > > #define LIBZIP_VERSION "0.10" > > #define LIBZIP_VERSION_MAJOR 0 > > #define LIBZIP_VERSION_MINOR 10 > > #define LIBZIP_VERSION_MICRO 0 > > > > #include > > > > typedef signed char int8_t; > > #define ZIP_INU8_MAX SCHAR_MAX > > > > typedef unsigned char uint8_t; > > #define ZIP_?INU8_MAX ?CHAR_MAX > > > > typedef shor? int16_t; > > #define ZIP_INU16_MIN ?CHAR_MIN > > #define ZIP_INU16_MAX ?CHAR_MAX > > > > typedef unsigned shor? uint16_t; > > #define ZIP_?INU16_MAX ?CHAR_MAX > > > > typedef in? int32_t; > > #define ZIP_INU32_MIN ?CHAR_MIN > > #define ZIP_INU32_MAX ?CHAR_MAX > > > > typedef unsigned in? uint32_t; > > #define ZIP_?INU32_MAX ?CHAR_MAX > > > > typedef long int64_t; > > #define ZIP_INU64_MIN SLONG_MIN > > #define ZIP_INU64_MAX SLONG_MAX > > > > typedef unsigned long uint64_t; > > #define ZIP_?INU64_MAX ?LONG_MAX > > > > > > #endif /* zipconf.h */ > > All of these values have a "?" injected in them, at seemingly randomly > places. This is the problem, and why the C compiler is throwing errors. Indeed, but not really '?' and not so random. Viewing zipconf.h in less shows control characters as for the section of concern: ======= typedef unsigned char uint8_t; #define ZIP_INU8_MAX CHAR_MAX typedef shor int16_t; #define ZIP_INU16_MIN CHAR_MIN #define ZIP_INU16_MAX CHAR_MAX typedef unsigned shor uint16_t; #define ZIP_INU16_MAX CHAR_MAX typedef in int32_t; #define ZIP_INU32_MIN CHAR_MIN #define ZIP_INU32_MAX CHAR_MAX typedef unsigned in uint32_t; #define ZIP_INU32_MAX CHAR_MAX typedef long int64_t; #define ZIP_INU64_MIN SLONG_MIN #define ZIP_INU64_MAX SLONG_MAX typedef unsigned long uint64_t; #define ZIP_INU64_MAX LONG_MAX ======= In ISO-8859-1 at least, is that German character that looks rather like a capital B in running writing (perhaps it's some sort of 't', as in short and int?), and the looks like a capital U with a single dot above, initially not easy to distinguish from cap U (appearing so alike to eg 'ULONG*' or 'UCHAR*' that I missed it on first glance) > I don't know how or why this is happening. There could be many things > going on that might explain it. Worst case would be odd/awkward > hardware failure (bad RAM would show something like this), corrupt > filesystem, a disk going bad silently ("bit rot"), etc.. This one seems far too non-random to be a hardware issue artifact. > My initial guess -- because this port uses a GNU autoconf script -- is > that it's obtaining the types for things incorrectly. > > Are you using any sort of LC_CTYPE or LANG setting in your dotfiles that > gets propagated to the root environment (during su, sudo, etc.)? I see > that you're in .de which is why I ask. I expect that's likely much closer to the mark. > I've attached a zipconf.h file from my system. You can compare the > differences; it should be obvious. My system does not have "?" > characters injected into the typedefs, but more importantly (and this is > indeed important!), the types it detects/uses are completely different. > > I'm not sure what's going on with your system, but it almost implies > that you have a separate set of include files that are "trumping" or > "overriding" the FreeBSD base system defaults. Quite likely language related, but I've no idea HOW that could happen? cheers, Ian