[tlbuild] upmendex, U_INVALID_FORMAT_ERROR, U_ICUDATA_ENTRY_POINT, isBigEndian

[Mojca Miklavec]

Hi,

Before the final build for x86_64-solaris I would like to ask what to
do about the following (sorry for top-posting).

Should I build twice, one with -DU_IS_BIG_ENDIAN=0, only taking
upmendex, and the second time without that flag, taking everything
else? In particular if xetex is known to be broken when built with
-DU_IS_BIG_ENDIAN=0.

Apostolos, are you able to come up with some reasonably small example
that fails?

Thank you,
    Mojca


On 1 May 2016 at 03:17, Nikola Lečić  wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 23:26:23 +0000 Karl Berry wrote:
>
>> Regarding the failure of upmendex.test on 32-bit freebsd et al.
>>
>> The short answer: the workaround I found is to explicitly specify the
>> compiler (both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS) flag -DU_IS_BIG_ENDIAN=0.
>> (This should not be needed in any other environment.)
>
> It was noticed that compiling with these flags change all binaries:
> http://tug.org/pipermail/tlbuild/2016q2/003495.html
>
> I've just noticed that (at least latex and xetex) binaries compiled with
> these flags are significantly (almost ~45%) slower than those compiled
> without them.
>
> Three xelatex runs on texlive-sr.tex:
> with -DU_IS_BIG_ENDIAN=0:
>   109.005u 0.842s 1:39.62 110.2% 26398+4722k 0+13io 0pf+0w
> without:
>   64.955u 0.897s 1:01.01 107.9% 26147+4603k 0+17io 0pf+0w
>
> Four latex+tex4ht runs on texlive-sr.tex:
> with -DU_IS_BIG_ENDIAN=0:
>   14.835u 0.323s 0:15.17 99.8% 2526+1378k 3+44io 36pf+0w
> without:
>   10.381u 0.409s 0:10.79 99.9% 1856+1229k 0+44io 0pf+0w
>
> This is a pretty significant difference. Do you have any idea why this
> happens? Can other builders that used -DU_IS_BIG_ENDIAN=0 comfirm this?
>
> Anyway, it seems I'll have to rebuild all FreeBSD binaries, except
> upmendex. We don't need TL2016 which is almost 50% slower than TL2015.

-----

On 1 May 2016 at 15:17, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
>
> I am working on book project and I tried to run the new xelatex on this project:
>
> xdvipdfmx:fatal: Something is wrong. Are you sure this is a DVI file?