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: Why was the reallocarray function not added to glibc?


On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Dennis Wölfing <denniswoelfing@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> I think I have fixed the problems with that patch.

Thank you for doing this work.

Do you have a copyright assignment on file with the FSF?  We can't
take patches from anyone without one.

> My changes include:
> - Updating the version number in malloc/Versions
> - Adding reallocarray to the abilist files
> - Wrapping the reallocarray declaration in #ifdef __USE_GNU
> - Changing the reallocarray strong_alias into a weak_alias
> Now the conform tests (and also the other tests) pass.

This definitely sounds like you're on the right track, at least.

> However because most of the patch was not written by me I am not sure what
> is the correct way to submit the updated patch.
>
> Of course the patch should include the original ChangeLog entry by Rüdiger
> Sonderfeld. And perhaps I should add another ChangeLog for my changes to the
> abilists. But do I also need to create additional ChangeLog entries for
> files where I just changed a few lines of the original patch?

ChangeLog entries need to mention every file that changed.  Yes, it's
tedious, but it's also enormously valuable when you are trying to
figure out *why* something changed, many years later.

> Also the original patch added new testcase file. Should the patch list
> 2014-2017 as the copyright date for that file because 2014 is year when it
> was written or should it be changed to say 2017?

I think we would do 2014-2017 for this.

zw


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