[ci] Switch to patched setup-haxe version

[tobil4sk]

This avoids the invalid url error caused by relative redirect of the "latest" file.

Temporary workaround for: krdlab/setup-haxe#61

[tobil4sk]

Looks like there are some failures related to #1283. @Aidan63

[Aidan63]

Seems like clang and gcc can't decide which overload to call when given null() (there are conversions to both string and char32_t). I'll take a look

[Aidan63]

Changes-On-4cff17.patch

Try this lovely bodge patch.

[tobil4sk]

That solves the error on my local system, though there are some warnings:

/.../hxcpp/src/cpp/encoding/Utf8.cpp: In static member function ‘static int cpp::encoding::Utf8::getByteCount(const null&)’:
/.../hxcpp/src/cpp/encoding/Utf8.cpp:30:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
   30 | }
      | ^
/.../hxcpp/src/cpp/encoding/Utf8.cpp: In static member function ‘static int cpp::encoding::Utf8::getCharCount(const null&)’:
/.../hxcpp/src/cpp/encoding/Utf8.cpp:88:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
   88 | }
      | ^
/.../hxcpp/src/cpp/encoding/Utf8.cpp: In static member function ‘static int cpp::encoding::Utf8::encode(const null&, const cpp::marshal::View<unsigned char>&)’:
/.../hxcpp/src/cpp/encoding/Utf8.cpp:103:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
  103 | }
      | ^

Would you like me to add that patch here, or should we merge this and you can open a separate PR for your patch?

[Aidan63]

Yeah just add the patch here. There are so many warnings I never pay attention to them, think you just need to put return in front of those NullReference calls to make it happy.

[tobil4sk]

@Aidan63 Now seeing a haxe test suite failure, on 32 bit linux with latest haxe:

results: SOME TESTS FAILURES (success: false)
unit.TestBytes
  test: FAILURE ........................................F...F............................................................................................................................
    line: 51, expected 66 but it is 67
    line: 57, expected 66 but it is 67

Seems like a recurrence of #1276 (comment)