Bug#902100: webkit2gtk: Please update patch fix-ftbfs-m68k.patch

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi Geert!

On 06/22/2018 10:44 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> The patch fix-ftbfs-m68k.patch needs to be updated to fix the FTBFS
>> of webkit2gtk on m68k. I have done that, could you apply the attached
>> patch for the next upload?
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
>> --- webkit2gtk-2.20.3.orig/Source/WTF/wtf/Platform.h
>> +++ webkit2gtk-2.20.3/Source/WTF/wtf/Platform.h
>> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@
>>  /* ==== CPU() - the target CPU architecture ==== */
>>  /* CPU(KNOWN) becomes true if we explicitly support a target CPU. */
>>
>> +/* CPU(M68K) - m68k */
>> +#if defined(__m68k__)
>> +#define WTF_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN 1
> 
>     #define WTF_CPU_KNOWN 1
> 
> The others do that, too, but nothing seems to rely on that.

That might be a leftover. I just refreshed the patch.

>> +#endif
> 
>> --- webkit2gtk-2.20.3.orig/Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperty.cpp
>> +++ webkit2gtk-2.20.3/Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperty.cpp
>> @@ -33,7 +33,11 @@ struct SameSizeAsCSSProperty {
>>      void* value;
>>  };
>>
>> +#if defined(__m68k__)
>> +COMPILE_ASSERT(sizeof(CSSProperty) <= sizeof(SameSizeAsCSSProperty), CSSProperty_should_stay_small);
>> +#else
>>  COMPILE_ASSERT(sizeof(CSSProperty) == sizeof(SameSizeAsCSSProperty), CSSProperty_should_stay_small);
>> +#endif
> 
> These two structures are not equivalent!
> If anything assumes so, it will crash when dereferencing the pointer.

Hmm. The original patch came from Andreas using this comparison. I just extended
it. I can have a closer look if I find the time.

> The patch below makes them match:
> 
> --- webkitgtk-2.20.3/Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperty.cpp.orig
> 2018-06-22 10:40:49.389060321 +0200
> +++ webkitgtk-2.20.3/Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperty.cpp 2018-06-22
> 10:40:52.681053717 +0200
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
>  namespace WebCore {
> 
>  struct SameSizeAsCSSProperty {
> -    uint32_t bitfields;
> +    uint16_t bitfields;
>      void* value;
>  };
> 
> If anything relies on having a hole in between the two fields, explicit
> padding should be added.

Well, I don't think we can add this change as this reduces the size of
the bitfield. Do you think we can just cut it in half without any issues?

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz at debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913