commit dae72fe6370dbf83e46f0d3e951f23fd5e89c6aa
parent 0cca777985365efbf25839e90258b99ca80f27cb
Author: emmett1 <emmett1.2miligrams@protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 16:01:03 +0000
nasm: updated to 3.01
Diffstat:
3 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/repos/extra/nasm/.checksum b/repos/extra/nasm/.checksum
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
-16e081124c6eac65674e4f7e93d642826c11950e038e0656a23007a8899bf532 nasm-2.16.03.tar.xz
+9254c5d12801b37f2024cb092a20cbed59f689d8b7d6abd95a6f2ca6fc1a168f nasm-3.01-musl.patch
+68d7d5d4a40f935bde5447a11c8cfb8e80d8b8f4b58d76761d9e0e4977906b4f nasm-3.01.tar.xz
diff --git a/repos/extra/nasm/abuild b/repos/extra/nasm/abuild
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
name=nasm
-version=2.16.03
+version=3.01
release=1
-source="https://www.$name.us/pub/$name/releasebuilds/$version/$name-$version.tar.xz"
+source="https://www.$name.us/pub/$name/releasebuilds/$version/$name-$version.tar.xz
+ nasm-3.01-musl.patch"
diff --git a/repos/extra/nasm/nasm-3.01-musl.patch b/repos/extra/nasm/nasm-3.01-musl.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+https://github.com/netwide-assembler/nasm/commit/44e89ba9b650b5e1533bca43682e167f51a3511f
+From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@zytor.com>
+Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 12:48:32 -0700
+Subject: [PATCH] compiler.h: drop the stupid C++-style cast-to-bool hack
+
+The C++-style cast-to-bool hack was broken in concept that it doesn't help the
+fundamental problem -- implicit conversions are broken for the
+backwards compatibility enum definition -- as well as in
+implementation, as it misspelled __STDC_VERSION__ as __STDC_VERSION.
+
+The #ifdef bool test *should* have prevented this problem, but
+apparently several compilers do define "bool" in <stdbool.h> even when
+it is a keyword, in violation of the C23 spec.
+
+Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@zytor.com>
+--- a/include/compiler.h
++++ b/include/compiler.h
+@@ -181,19 +181,10 @@ size_t strlcpy(char *, const char *, size_t);
+ char * pure_func strrchrnul(const char *, int);
+ #endif
+
+-#if !defined(__cplusplus) || (__STDC_VERSION >= 202311L)
+ /* C++ and C23 have bool, false, and true as proper keywords */
++#if !defined(__cplusplus) || (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 202311L)
+ # ifdef HAVE_STDBOOL_H
+-/* If <stdbool.h> exists, include it explicitly to prevent it from
+- begin included later, causing the "bool" macro to be defined. */
+ # include <stdbool.h>
+-# ifdef bool
+-/* Force bool to be a typedef instead of a macro. What a "clever" hack
+- this is... */
+- typedef bool /* The macro definition of bool */
+-# undef bool
+- bool; /* No longer the macro definition */
+-# endif
+ # elif defined(HAVE___BOOL)
+ typedef _Bool bool;
+ # define false 0
+@@ -201,14 +192,10 @@ char * pure_func strrchrnul(const char *, int);
+ # else
+ /* This is a bit dangerous, because casting to this ersatz bool
+ will not produce the same result as the standard (bool) cast.
+- Instead, use the bool() constructor-style macro defined below. */
++ Instead, use the explicit construct !!x instead of relying on
++ implicit conversions or casts. */
+ typedef enum bool { false, true } bool;
+ # endif
+-/* This amounts to a C++-style conversion cast to bool. This works
+- because C ignores an argument-taking macro when used without an
+- argument and because bool was redefined as a typedef if it previously
+- was defined as a macro (see above.) */
+-# define bool(x) ((bool)!!(x))
+ #endif
+
+ /* Create a NULL pointer of the same type as the address of
+@@ -321,11 +308,11 @@ static inline void *mempset(void *dst, int c, size_t n)
+ * less likely to be taken.
+ */
+ #ifdef HAVE___BUILTIN_EXPECT
+-# define likely(x) __builtin_expect(bool(x), true)
+-# define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(bool(x), false)
++# define likely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), true)
++# define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), false)
+ #else
+-# define likely(x) bool(x)
+-# define unlikely(x) bool(x)
++# define likely(x) (!!(x))
++# define unlikely(x) (!!(x))
+ #endif
+
+ #ifdef HAVE___BUILTIN_PREFETCH
+
+https://github.com/netwide-assembler/nasm/commit/746e7c9efa37cec9a44d84a1e96b8c38f385cc1f
+From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@zytor.com>
+Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:05:55 -0700
+Subject: [PATCH] compiler.h: the test for "neither C++ nor C23" still wrong
+
+The test needs to test for neither nor; as it was it tested "(not C++)
+or C23" which was not at all what was intended...
+
+Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@zytor.com>
+--- a/include/compiler.h
++++ b/include/compiler.h
+@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ char * pure_func strrchrnul(const char *, int);
+ #endif
+
+ /* C++ and C23 have bool, false, and true as proper keywords */
+-#if !defined(__cplusplus) || (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 202311L)
++#if !defined(__cplusplus) && (__STDC_VERSION__ < 202311L)
+ # ifdef HAVE_STDBOOL_H
+ # include <stdbool.h>
+ # elif defined(HAVE___BOOL)
