This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Code freeze for glibc-2.20
- From: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramrad01 at arm dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:20:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: Code freeze for glibc-2.20
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53E5D3A3 dot 70304 at archlinux dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1408121519310 dot 11174 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAJA7tRZhFHcOVf=Scj_xb9bf3vXaMNwukC9i95DhXfeKLGnWPQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 12 August 2014 17:35, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2014, Allan McRae wrote:
>>
>>> Architecture maintainers, please report your build status on the wiki
>>> page [1].
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Allan
>>>
>>> [1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.20
>>
>> And don't list things as architecture-independent without sufficient
>> analysis to show that they are, or to describe the conditions under which
>> they are seen. Carlos, it seems you moved some conform/ test failures for
>> semaphore.h, cpio.h and fmtmsg.h from AArch64 to architecture-independent
>> (wiki page revision 22, 15 July). I don't see those failures on x86_64.
>> Please move them back to the AArch64 section or add a description of the
>> conditions the architecture should satisfy to get those failures ("uses
>> generic version of header X" or similar) - or, better, fix them.
>
> This is listed as an AArch64 GCC bug on that page -
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441 . Is it really that
> you don't see this failure on other architectures ?
I didn't see that failure (math/basic-test) last time I ran make check
on x86_64 although I should do it again with more recent sources.
Interestingly Marcus didn't report seeing it (on the same page) with
gcc 4.9.2 on AArch64 either.
--
Will Newton
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro