[Apt-Rpm] apt-rpm bug fixes

[Panu Matilainen]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Ryan Burns wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:12:23 +0200 (EET)
> Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at laiskiainen.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Ryan Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Panu,
>>>
>>> Don't worry about the late response, it took me a quite a while get around
>>> to submitting those patches :) Thanks for applying them.
>>
>> Heh. Well, thanks for getting around to submitting them :)
>>
>>> On the arm alignment issues, I corrected the md5 patch to follow what was
>>> done in sha1.h and verified that it still fixes the issue.
>>
>> Ok, good - applied. Not that I particularly like having gcc-specifics in
>> apt either but at least this is no worse than what we've had so far.
>>
>>> And for the bool alignment, I completely agree with you that having to align
> a
>>> bool seems very wrong, but it is indeed required in this case. The general
>>> problem is that gcc4+ no longer handles alignment for the programer. IIRC,
> the
>>> community's reasoning is that the C standard specifies that alignment is up
> to
>>> the programmer, and therefore it is unnecessary for the compiler to help
> with
>>> this. (Sorry, I can find the link I was given to the section of the standard
>>> that talks about it). I guess in previous versions of gcc, they were just
> "kind
>>> enough" to handle the most common cases for us. Long story short is that the
>>> bool is not aligned and unlike x86, arm doesn't allow for unaligned access.
>>
>> What bothers me here is that apt is full of bools, what exactly is it
>> about HideZeroEpoch that makes it require alignment? Hum... one
>> possibility:
>>
>
>
> Wow, I totally missed that. Yes, that is exactly what is causing the issue.
> Thanks for catching it.
> Ryan

Ok, thanks for verifying - fixed now.

The thing has been lurking there for something like 1.5 years without 
anybody noticing it so don't blame yourself too hard for missing it :)

 	- Panu -