This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix dynamic linker issue with bind-now


Hi Petar,

I think this patch could really use comments explaining what is
happening for future readers of the code (both in dynamic-link.h and
the test). I also think tst-dynamic-link is quite a generic name and
it might be better to rename it to something more specific e.g.
tst-split-dynreloc or something like that.

It would also be good to mention how the patch was tested e.g. which platforms.

On 2 December 2014 at 23:27, Petar Jovanovic <petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com> wrote:
> Ping.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petar Jovanovic [mailto:petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:07 AM
> To: 'Mike Frysinger'
> Cc: 'libc-alpha@sourceware.org'; 'petar.jovanovic@imgtec.com'; 'davem@davemloft.net'
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix dynamic linker issue with bind-now
>
> Any additional comments here?
>
> Regards,
> Petar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petar Jovanovic [mailto:petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 3:47 AM
> To: 'Mike Frysinger'
> Cc: 'libc-alpha@sourceware.org'; 'petar.jovanovic@imgtec.com'; 'davem@davemloft.net'
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix dynamic linker issue with bind-now
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> This was not clear to me, otherwise I would add the test case in a patch.
> Thanks for the explanation. Here it is again.
>
> Let me know if you want some modification.
>
> Regards,
> Petar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vapier@gentoo.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:33 PM
> To: Petar Jovanovic
> Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org; petar.jovanovic@imgtec.com; davem@davemloft.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix dynamic linker issue with bind-now
>
> On 16 Oct 2014 03:05, Petar Jovanovic wrote:
>> Do you any additional data/feedback to proceed with this issue?
>
> when Roland asked for a testcase, the implication was to include it in glibc itself so it'd be compiled & run as part of `make check`.  that way we won't accidentally regress in the future.
> -mike
>



-- 
Will Newton
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]