Hi Andrew,
On 4/17/25 08:13, Johnson, Andrew N. wrote:
On 4/17/25, 9:27 AM, "Michael Davidsaver" <mdavidsaver at gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/16/25 09:34, Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk wrote:
I saw that a new Fedora was release very recently.
Yes. Now comes GCC 15, which defaults to C23.
Looking at some of the changes you made to fix the build, it looks to me
like gcc 15 / C23 is going to break a lot of support modules...
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/epics-base/epics-base/issues/632__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!YHkjFuvcJ3O3DLlrIx18bZ_np7W9OljZ-htT9LK3F3Dz-HpgmTBbEFU6MZqA-7ka1WLkntrENxJ-_pt2$ <https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/github.com/epics-base/epics-base/issues/632__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!YHkjFuvcJ3O3DLlrIx18bZ_np7W9OljZ-htT9LK3F3Dz-HpgmTBbEFU6MZqA-7ka1WLkntrENxJ-_pt2$>
I saw that commit, how come the build didn’t fail with the same error that other PRs are? Ah that wasn’t a PR, and your Fedora CI job did fail, but apparently we don’t get notifications when non-PR jobs fail. Can/should we change that in the CI?
Looking at the specific code that’s failing, in this case I think the fix is just adding a cast to DEVSUPFUN* since we only print the pointer. I just pushed a commit to try that, this job <https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/anjohnson/epics-base/actions/runs/14518774891/job/40734270393__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!Y3MJzRgtmzpdgBoeiXRDeZnv8nkJLd1SpOFCaGL5BmIVCZU9vouikntKh91DIcFlib6pn3y_d-SrBltT1fRFy49jAg$ > shows that seemed to work <https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/anjohnson/epics-base/actions/runs/14518774891/job/40734270393*step:8:4731__;Iw!!G_uCfscf7eWS!Y3MJzRgtmzpdgBoeiXRDeZnv8nkJLd1SpOFCaGL5BmIVCZU9vouikntKh91DIcFlib6pn3y_d-SrBltT1fQ39W_Urg$ >, but there are other similar failures later in the build <https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/anjohnson/epics-base/actions/runs/14518774891/job/40734270393*step:8:6704__;Iw!!G_uCfscf7eWS!Y3MJzRgtmzpdgBoeiXRDeZnv8nkJLd1SpOFCaGL5BmIVCZU9vouikntKh91DIcFlib6pn3y_d-SrBltT1fTL6VJ-cw$ >, which I will look at.
- Andrew
--
Complexity comes for free, Simplicity you have to work for.
- References:
- Did the "Fedora-latest" version on GitHub just get bumped? Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk
- Re: Did the "Fedora-latest" version on GitHub just get bumped? Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- Re: Did the "Fedora-latest" version on GitHub just get bumped? Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Did the "Fedora-latest" version on GitHub just get bumped? Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- Next:
Build failed: EPICS Base 7 base-7.0-1624 AppVeyor via Core-talk
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
<2025>
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Did the "Fedora-latest" version on GitHub just get bumped? Michael Davidsaver via Core-talk
- Next:
Build failed: EPICS Base 7 base-7.0-1623 AppVeyor via Core-talk
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
<2025>
|