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: [review v3] slotinfo in struct dtv_slotinfo_list should be flexible array [BZ #25...


On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> >> How long will that take and is it OK to leave things in a broken
> >> state for that long for a given target like nios2?
> > 
> > Maybe we should back the fix out and see how quickly we can get in the
> > other GCC 10 patches?
> 
> I'd like to hear Joseph's opinion on this.

I think the GCC fix ought to be backported to GCC 8 and 9 branches (and 
generically that applies to fixes relevant to building new glibc versions 
- or to building GCC *with* new glibc versions, sometimes that can justify 
e.g. selective backports of libsanitizer fixes where new glibc broke it).

I don't think we have a basis for backing out this change from glibc at 
this point.  However, if people wish to fix building with GCC 10 on 
previous glibc release branches (and such fixes have been a common class 
of glibc patch backports in the past - evidently some people do wish to 
build glibc release branches with GCC versions that postdate those glibc 
releases), perhaps it would be better for the release-branch fix just to 
disable the warning in the affected file rather than backporting the fix 
from master.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


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