This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: 2.26 release blockers?
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:57:11 -0700
- Subject: Re: 2.26 release blockers?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6ce02dfc-d8e8-bcd8-4ced-a09293cf1732@redhat.com> <8bcba445-524d-c0b2-cd11-03ef82f3f5a5@linaro.org> <1065eb07-b190-6edd-fc53-a717569a2273@gotplt.org> <1ed48702-0114-8c7e-12cc-8b4e240b6834@linaro.org>
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Adhemerval Zanella
<adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/07/2017 14:51, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> On Saturday 01 July 2017 02:21 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> I would like add both C11 threads support [1] and the final patches
>>> to finally remove the sysdep-cancel.h asm hackery [2].
>>>
>>> For C11 I think it generated a consensus that there is no impending
>>> technical issues about current approach using underlying POSIX
>>> primitives and Tovarld also think it is a good idea to add it on
>>> 2.26.
>>
>> Adhemerval and I discussed this on IRC earlier today and it looks to me
>> like the C11 threads patches should not affect architecture testing
>> beyond adding new symbols to the ABI. I'm inclined to allow it as a
>> freeze exception but I know Joseph has his reservations about it.
>> Joseph, if you still object, could you elaborate on why you think this
>> would affect architecture testing? Overall the code impact is much less
>> than some of the blockers currently approved given that it is a brand
>> new ABI/API that is isolated from everything else in glibc.
>>
>> Either way, it would be nice if someone could help review these (I'll
>> give it a shot too later in the week, but I may need a second pair of
>> eyes on some of them) so that it could make it early into 2.27 if we all
>> end up agreeing that 2.26 is not a suitable target.
>>
>> Siddhesh
>>
>
> Thanks for bringing this up Siddhesh, if any is interested the latest
> version of the patch is here [1].
>
> I would also like to push the sysdep-cancel.h asm removal, but due
> x32 concerns raised by H.J.Lu and my plan to send an update revision
> today I think it can wait. It still somewhat not intrusive, since the
> changes I am planning is is just to create proper prototypes for
> internal non-cancellable syscalls and it would be good to a simplified
> 2.26 as base for new ports inclusions.
>
Please put wrapper changes into a separate patch so that I can
compare glibc builds between before and after x32 macro changes.
They must be equivalent.
Thanks.
--
H.J.