This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:09:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52E649BF dot 5020400 at archlinux dot org> <20140128205657 dot 16DBA74438 at topped-with-meat dot com> <52E9DEB7 dot 4000709 at redhat dot com> <52E9E84F dot 50907 at redhat dot com> <52EA682D dot 90900 at archlinux dot org> <52F03BEC dot 1020202 at archlinux dot org> <52F062C5 dot 6050705 at redhat dot com> <52F06713 dot 1040005 at archlinux dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402050004130 dot 25166 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <52F1B7CE dot 1040809 at archlinux dot org>
On 02/04/2014 11:02 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 05/02/14 10:12, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Allan McRae wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph suggests reverting them[1] and Roland agreed[2]. Here is more
>>> from Roland about the issue and concerns about breaking the ABI [3].
>>>
>>> [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00720.html
>>> [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00770.html
>>> [3] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00719.html
>>>
>>> As far as I see, there was no formal conclusion on what to do for
>>> glibc-2.19 here. Hence the query in the status list.
>>
>> Well, what we should not do is sit around indefinitely delaying the
>> release! Revert the changes, run the testsuite on x86_64 and x86, commit
>> the reversion and start the process for the actual release. It's clear we
>> do not have consensus to keep the changes in 2.19, which is what matters.
>>
>
> On the allan/revert-TLS-changes branch, I have reverted:
>
> "Async-signal safe TLS." (7f507ee1)
> "Patch 2/4 of the effort to make TLS access async-signal-safe." (1f33d36a)
> "Patch 3/4 of the effort to make TLS access async-signal-safe." (35e8f7ab)
> "Patch [1/4] async-signal safe TLS." (69a17d9d)
> "BZ 16133 has been fixed (async signal safe TLS)." (a494421f)
>
> This builds and passes the test-suite on i686 and x86_64.
>
> Are all the patches involved requiring reverted, or am I being too heavy
> handed?
No, that's everything.
Cheers,
Carlos.