#1049876 bbhash: FTBFS on 32 bit architectures

Package:
src:bbhash
Source:
src:bbhash
Submitter:
Emanuele Rocca
Date:
2025-08-17 18:10:58 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#1049876#5
Date:
2023-08-16 12:44:55 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

bbhash does not build correctly on the following 32 bit architectures:
armel, armhf, i386, mipsel.

g++ -o example_custom_hash  example_custom_hash.cpp -O3 -std=c++11 -lpthread
In file included from example.cpp:1:
BooPHF.h: In function ‘uint64_t boomphf::fastrange64(uint64_t, uint64_t)’:
BooPHF.h:817:37: error: ‘__uint128_t’ was not declared in this scope; did you mean ‘__uint8_t’?
  817 |                 return (uint64_t)(((__uint128_t)word * (__uint128_t)p) >> 64);
      |                                     ^~~~~~~~~~~
      |                                     __uint8_t
[...]

See https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=bbhash&arch=armel&ver=1.0.0-5&stamp=1685880628&raw=0
#1049876#10
Date:
2023-08-25 09:16:47 UTC
From:
To:
Am Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 02:44:55PM +0200 schrieb Emanuele Rocca:

I've asked for removal of these architectures in bug #1050491.

Kind regards
    Andreas.
#1049876#17
Date:
2023-08-25 09:46:43 UTC
From:
To:
Andreas, what 32-bit builds?  bbhash has never built on 32-bit architectures.

Emanuele, since when is this RC?
#1049876#22
Date:
2023-08-25 10:58:03 UTC
From:
To:
Am Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 09:46:43AM +0000 schrieb Graham Inggs:

Good question - I was not properly looking at the build matrix.
Sorry for the noise

I'm tempted to close this bug since its at best wishlist but there
is no point at all to provide this package for 32bit.

Kind regards
    Andreas.
#1049876#27
Date:
2023-08-25 12:14:55 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

My apologies! For some reason I was convinced bbhash and btllib did
build in the past.

In both cases it seems to make sense to limit the Architecture field to
the supported ones, given that as far as I understand both packages and
are not portable? See:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#architecture
#1049876#32
Date:
2023-09-04 09:52:24 UTC
From:
To:
Am Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 02:14:55PM +0200 schrieb Emanuele Rocca:

OK, setting severity to wishlist since it is not RC

I do not see any point to manually edit architectures list.  Specifying
architectures manually has the drawback that porters of new
architectures need to ask maintainers to add some new architecture (as
currently be done for loong64)  The fact that some port does not exist
is IMHO sufficient to know that the package does not build.  That's why
I set this bug to wishlist.

Kind regards
    Andreas.