This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] *printf/*scanf functions for the long double migration on powerpc64le
- From: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabriel at inconstante dot eti dot br>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 20:46:09 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] *printf/*scanf functions for the long double migration on powerpc64le
- References: <20180524043553.23569-1-gabriel@inconstante.eti.br> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1805242053490.24015@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20180528165453.49fa61b2@tereshkova> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1805312106570.10808@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2018, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:
>
>> You presumed correctly, indeed. I think that Zack's proposal is the right
>> thing to have in the end.
...
> I don't think tests for hidden annotation issues (or fixes for existing
> such issues) are needed in order to make the move to explicit flags here;
> the patches just need reviewing / updating to follow the rules described
> at <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-03/msg00552.html> for any
> new internal functions they add.
For the record, I might not get to it but it is my intention to update
my __no_long_double removal patchset this weekend, adding appropriate
hidden annotations and addressing any other review comments that are
still outstanding.
I did write some tests to expose existing issues with missing hidden
annotations; the problem was they exposed a _lot_ of missing hidden
annotations, and fixing them all, well, that rabbit hole bottomed out
at Adhemerval's thread cancellation patches!
zw