fix(main/swi-prolog): continue even if ABI check fails #22742
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
It seems that the change complicates the build process. How about disabling the ABI check? |
|
I agree, altering the behavior of the ABI check is a more robust solution, because that assumes that the |
robertkirkman
force-pushed
the
swi-prolog-fix-abi-file-32-bit
branch
from
be98978 to
990d01a
Compare
robertkirkman
changed the title
robertkirkman
force-pushed
the
swi-prolog-fix-abi-file-32-bit
branch
from
990d01a to
aab7991
Compare
Grimler91
approved these changes
Jan 3, 2025
TomJo2000
approved these changes
Jan 23, 2025
TomJo2000
force-pushed
the
swi-prolog-fix-abi-file-32-bit
branch
from
aab7991 to
e07e77f
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
By default
swiplwill terminate if$PREFIX/lib/swipl/ABIdoes not contain the exact same string thatswipl --abi-versionprints. The error appears to be spurious, so this bypasses it, while printing a warning about what is happening if the check failed.Fixes #22737