This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: 2.26 release blockers?
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 15:26:08 -0300
- 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>
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.
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-06/msg01413.html