This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.24 --- Starting soft/slush freeze discussion
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 12:28:42 -0300
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.24 --- Starting soft/slush freeze discussion
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <57757DBB.2060404@linaro.org> <85e8de3e-5d84-fc13-368f-f7abfbaf3edd@redhat.com>
On 04/07/2016 03:41, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/30/2016 10:14 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>> I will spend some time tomorrow compiling the release blockers for 2.24, so
>> please use this thread as placeholder to discuss them. I would like to
>> have them defined by the end of tomorrow.
>
> I would like to get in the malloc_set_state/malloc_get_state changes:
>
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg00905.html>
The malloc_{set,get}_state seems to be stable based on previous thread
iterations and I think it is reasonable to add it as blocker for 2.24
release.
>
> The test depends on some new ELF symbol hacks which enable linking against compatibility symbols from test.
>
> I assume we also need the memalign changes for the dynamic linker to increase Emacs compatibility (with their interposed malloc). But that's a bug fix which could be backported later.
>
Right.
> I would also like to finish review of the stack-protector changes and make them part of the release (disabled by default). They may end up having a dependency on Stefan Liebler's IFUNC changes.
>
> Florian
>
I would like to add stack-protector as well, but I am not really sure about the timeframe
(and it will require some more testing if any arch maintainer desires to make sure
it works correctly). I would like to hear from some other developer if it is reasonable
or not to add it.
The iFUNC change I think we should postpone to 2.24.