Hello,
I have found the following changes were needed to build on Linux:
I figured I would try to put together a PR. My guess is that I need to grab the latest of backward-cpp and not just patch it. Does that sound reasonable to the developers?
I have found the following changes were needed to build on Linux:
diff --git a/thirdparty/backward-cpp/backward.hpp b/thirdparty/backward-cpp/backward.hpp
index e2a22bc01..69bd3af70 100644
--- a/thirdparty/backward-cpp/backward.hpp
+++ b/thirdparty/backward-cpp/backward.hpp
@@ -1067,12 +1067,12 @@ private:
{
if (result.found) return;
- if ((bfd_get_section_flags(fobj.handle.get(), section)
+ if ((bfd_section_flags(section)
& SEC_ALLOC) == 0)
return; // a debug section is never loaded automatically.
- bfd_vma sec_addr = bfd_get_section_vma(fobj.handle.get(), section);
- bfd_size_type size = bfd_get_section_size(section);
+ bfd_vma sec_addr = bfd_section_vma(section);
+ bfd_size_type size = bfd_section_size(section);
// are we in the boundaries of the section?
if (addr < sec_addr || addr >= sec_addr + size) {
I figured I would try to put together a PR. My guess is that I need to grab the latest of backward-cpp and not just patch it. Does that sound reasonable to the developers?
Yeah, probably best to fix that issue upstream in backward-cpp (if it's not fixed there yet) and then upgrading the copy in our repository. I assume a proper patch will be slightly more complicated since it should probably preserve compatibility with older versions of libbfd.
Hm, CI failure caused by Isilkor's server's TLS certificate being expired. The two build envs I have (Arch and Flatpak) don't seem to have libbfd in the first place, so I can't really tell how necessary this is. Out of curiosity, what are you building OC on?
(I did need an additional
(I did need an additional
#include <cstdint>
in one of the crimes I commited to get a working build, but that seems orthogonal.)
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill