This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.23 --- Hard freeze starting
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:16:23 -0200
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.23 --- Hard freeze starting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <569D4A42 dot 7030006 at linaro dot org> <569D61E9 dot 1080501 at redhat dot com> <569D6754 dot 4080300 at redhat dot com> <569DD058 dot 6060500 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <569E7AE1 dot 1080201 at redhat dot com> <569E8894 dot 3040607 at linaro dot org> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601192147100 dot 27749 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20160119223132 dot GM14840 at vapier dot lan> <569F82CA dot 20703 at linaro dot org> <569F8458 dot 4070209 at redhat dot com>
On 20-01-2016 10:58, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/20/2016 01:51 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>> Right, so then we need to enforce a policy of what is feasible to set as
>> release blocker and what should be moved to the next one. As you said,
>> architecture-independent ABI should not be a blocker, so the patches for
>> 'Fix ABI for external copies of string function inlines on AArch64'
>> should be delay to 2.24.
>
> I'm not sure that this follows from the discussion regarding
> strlcpy/strlcat (which was about an enhancement, not a bugfix). The
> description here
>
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-01/msg00170.html>
>
> suggests very much that this is a genuine blocker bug because we would
> otherwise ship with an incorrect ABI on aarch64.
>
> Florian
Yes, but we also have the option (which I prefer to avoid) to revert the
patch and work on a better solution in next release.
So I am open to suggestion on how to handle possible ABI break issues
near the release date. Should we just revert the patch or should block
the release until a ABI fix is reviewed?