This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Remove union wait
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:10:23 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Remove union wait
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56BE07C8 dot 40205 at redhat dot com> <20160307225511 dot 093E92C3BF5 at topped-with-meat dot com> <56DEA20E dot 3040907 at redhat dot com> <56FBBCAF dot 7090806 at redhat dot com> <20160330223228 dot 6A7382C3C54 at topped-with-meat dot com> <56FC5A6C dot 8090408 at redhat dot com> <mvmy48z5dc2 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <5707AA6C dot 1080800 at redhat dot com> <mvmegacwm33 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <570BC36A dot 1050603 at redhat dot com> <20160411215550 dot 692942C3AC8 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 04/11/2016 05:55 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I still don't have much opinion either way about staged deprecation.
> Since few others have opined, I think the decision now is up to
> whether Carlos changes his mind.
tldr; I don't object.
As I mentioned down-thread, we had no data about breakage, now we have
a full openSUSE:Factory build and Andreas and Florian have addressed
all the issues that were seen. With this data in hand I don't object
to a single cycle removal.
At the end of the day I feel that it's a sufficiently simple change
that single cycle removal is fine. Any more and we're probably wasting
our own community resources tracking and making sure we actually
deprecate the interface and don't forget (see Zach Weinberg's
excellent paper: "A Maintenance Programmer’s View of GCC" talking
about incomplete transitions).
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
[1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf