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: glibc 2.24 --- Starting soft/slush freeze discussion



On 01/07/2016 20:01, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
>> I have updated the 2.24 release wiki with H.J. Lu, Zach Weinberg and mine
>> updates as blockers and desirables.
>>
>> I added the 3 bugs appointed by H. J. Lu in releases blockers mainly because
>> there are potentially build breakers and important ABI fixes (X86-64: Properly 
>> align stack in _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic).  I also added Zach's sysmacros as a blocker,
>> although I do not have a strong opinion about them (I am about to read all the
>> thread now).  I have also add two releases blocker from my side: 1 .Refactor 
>> Linux raise implementation (BZ#15368) and 2. Remove __ASSUME_OFF_DIFF_OFF64 definition.
>>
>> I have added the 'Check GLIBC_IFUNC to enable/disable ifunc features' in desirables
>> features mainly from a conservative approach (it was sent late in release cycle,
>> it is still in review process, it only addresses x86_64). We can move it to
>> release blocker if there are consensus about it.
> 
> I don't think GLIBC_IFUNC or tunables are appropriate at this stage - 
> anything involving new environment variables requires very careful 
> consideration (of what APIs we want to support for users, of possible 
> security issues, etc.) that we simply don't have time to do properly now.  
> Because of the risk of architecture-specific issues that would invalidate 
> testing already underway, [...]

Right, both last iterations were indeed sent in a late stage.  I will remove
both form release blockers.

> [...] I don't think the *fallocate* consolidations are 
> appropriate now either.  [...]

I will remove it also from release blockers.

> I also think the pretty-printers are too big a 
> change to include at this point.
> 

For pretty-printers I tend to agree with Siddhesh that it has been reviewed
for some time and it does not impact in any primary functionality.


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