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: [PATCH] Add missing sparc32 NPTL file otherwise we use thewrong lowlevellock.c implementation.

From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
To: schwab at linux-m68k dot org
Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add missing sparc32 NPTL file otherwise we use thewrong lowlevellock.c implementation.
References: <20120315.211406.404873818467697172.davem@davemloft.net><m27gykubb4.fsf@igel.home>

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:47:43 +0100

> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
> 
>> Any sysdep that provides an override for lowlevellock.c must also
>> provide a libc-lowlevellock.c to pull in the same code via an
>> include.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to fix
> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/libc-lowlevellock.c?  A silent failure mode is
> bad, and it appears that the arm port is affected as well.

Ok, would something as simple as having it include <lowlevellock.c>
instead of "lowlevellock.c" do the right thing?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Add missing sparc32 NPTL file otherwise we use the wronglowlevellock.c implementation.
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- [PATCH] Add missing sparc32 NPTL file otherwise we use the wronglowlevellock.c implementation.
  - From: David Miller
- Re: [PATCH] Add missing sparc32 NPTL file otherwise we use the wrong lowlevellock.c implementation.
  - From: Andreas Schwab

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