This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] libio: fmemopen rewrite to POSIX compliance
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:13:26 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] libio: fmemopen rewrite to POSIX compliance
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53B3FB30 dot 6010201 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53BAE045 dot 6010609 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53C3C158 dot 9060408 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1407162119480 dot 22313 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <53C81AB3 dot 1030409 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53CE6041 dot 9030101 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53D63C85 dot 3080602 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53D86CDA dot 1000700 at redhat dot com> <53D8DC66 dot 8030805 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
On 30-07-2014 08:52, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 30-07-2014 00:56, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 07/28/2014 08:05 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> On 22-07-2014 09:59, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>> On 17-07-2014 15:49, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>> On 16-07-2014 18:20, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>>>>> This patch looks like it needs updating for hppa now having its own
>>>>> Thanks, I though I have covered all abi files. What about the implementation itself?
>>>> Ping about patch contents.
>>> Ping. I have update my branch azanella/fmemopen.
>> I started reviewing this and IMO it's going to take
>> more time than we have during the freeze.
>> I see no strong or compelling argument to put it
>> into 2.20.
>> If it went into 2.21 we could test it in rawhide and
>> make sure nothing else was broken.
>> If I've learned anything from Siddhesh's changes
>> in the libio code it's that nothing is as easy as
>> you think and distribution testing is critical
>> to finding issues.
>> My strong recommendation is that this get deferred
>> until 2.21.
>> Unless you have done distribution testing already?
> I have not and it is no problem to move it to 2.21. I just a pity we
> can't add it on 2.20...
I have update the symbol versioning and abilist for 2.21 and pushed it to