From: rsbecker@nexbridge.com
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 03:20:05 GMT
Subject: RE: [Change] Git build issue on NonStop
Message-ID: <01c601dc284b$24496400$6cdc2c00$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250918022912.GA1135133@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On September 17, 2025 10:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:16:13PM -0400, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:
>
>> Just a quick FYI. The addition of uintptr_t in clar tests has broken
>> my CI build on NonStop x86. I will be fixing this locally. It may take
>> a patch series unless a quick workaround is possible, which I am
>> hoping.
>>
>> For those on the list from my platform who are monitoring, this looks
>> like -D__NSK_OPTIONAL_TYPES__ is now required for the build. I am
>> unsure what else may be needed.
>
>We use uintptr_t in lots of places in the regular code. I guess this bit in
>compat/posix.h is what makes it work:
>
>  #ifdef NO_INTPTR_T
>  /*
>   * On I16LP32, ILP32 and LP64 "long" is the safe bet, however
>   * on LLP86, IL33LLP64 and P64 it needs to be "long long",
>   * while on IP16 and IP16L32 it is "int" (resp. "short")
>   * Size needs to match (or exceed) 'sizeof(void *)'.
>   * We can't take "long long" here as not everybody has it.
>   */
>  typedef long intptr_t;
>  typedef unsigned long uintptr_t;
>  #endif
>
>But clar has its own compatibility layer. So it would need to do something similar. I
>see the clar line in question also uses PRIxPTR, which I can imagine might not be
>available everywhere either. We don't use that ourselves at all.
>
>I kind of wonder if just:
>
>diff --git a/t/unit-tests/clar/clar.c b/t/unit-tests/clar/clar.c index
>80c5359425..f408af850f 100644
>--- a/t/unit-tests/clar/clar.c
>+++ b/t/unit-tests/clar/clar.c
>@@ -875,8 +875,8 @@ void clar__assert_equal(
> 		void *p1 = va_arg(args, void *), *p2 = va_arg(args, void *);
> 		is_equal = (p1 == p2);
> 		if (!is_equal)
>-			p_snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "0x%"PRIxPTR" !=
>0x%"PRIxPTR,
>-				   (uintptr_t)p1, (uintptr_t)p2);
>+			p_snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "0x%"PRIuMAX" !=
>0x%"PRIuMAX,
>+				   (uintmax_t)p1, (uintmax_t)p2);
> 	}
> 	else {
> 		int i1 = va_arg(args, int), i2 = va_arg(args, int);
>
>would be sufficient.

Yes, it would work. uintmax_t is part of the standard set while uintptr_t is
considered an extension. Not my decision on this grouping. I'm setting
the -D in CFLAGS to see if that works, I would be fine going that way, 
although better would be adding it into config.uname.mak in the NONSTOP
section.