This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.18 machine status?
- From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- To: carlos at redhat dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, marcus dot shawcroft at linaro dot org, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com, thomas at codesourcery dot com, roland at hack dot frob dot com, krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, vapier at gentoo dot org, cmetcalf at tilera dot com, schwab at linux-m68k dot org
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.18 machine status?
- References: <51E5C427 dot 60304 at redhat dot com> <20130716 dot 163637 dot 1424870650844239462 dot davem at davemloft dot net>
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:07:35 -0400
>
>> David, How are SPARC and SPARC64?
>
> Sparc v9 32-bit is clean with no testsuite failures.
>
> I am testing sparc 64-bit today.
Sparc 64-bit needed some minor ULP adjustments.
All that is left are failures of nptl/tst-cancel{4,5}* on 64-bit
sparc. They all fail the same way saying "minimum write buffer size
too large".
Should be easy to fix and looks like just a minor adjustment is
needed in these test cases.
I'll take care of it when I get a chance.
So, in essence, Sparc looks pretty good as far as I can tell.