This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add INLINE_SYSCALL_RETURN/INLINE_SYSCALL_ERROR_RETURN
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:16:34 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add INLINE_SYSCALL_RETURN/INLINE_SYSCALL_ERROR_RETURN
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150814120014 dot GA28610 at gmail dot com> <87oaiavy2c dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOoP9GPP+i6xbAXwHffwr+KOKNhV=FsJ5sx=G2bM_1SE+g at mail dot gmail dot com> <87oai9vkg7 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqPmsPPR7RPbdhMKh-cRxK_J2dphmECdvq0QHtfnLgz0w at mail dot gmail dot com> <87k2sxvjh8 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOrbhzbxg2ed3w0i7zE7=KM1q37DtR1vAY_Lk=rxsJ_8mA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87d1ypvixm dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqEpVE3X-drZp6W6UESV0CCAtY3Qew+SPOt1b7Y9BNwfA at mail dot gmail dot com> <878u9dvh61 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqNhBrGkJCkp5xT8DebN68qzoZciWtSZzGhYo1Msyv3TQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqZ=4B698SouQm=fTLaZvsqStQRYyMMhjPNCKMbjK1Xmw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqNodDbB2mi4SU6agR=-qK0yfRHyFq7BiwBeWre-gJ1tw at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508211502380 dot 2039 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMe9rOrLUBih4UOrn=bb9uwi29y1FzzYUTwxHxLwRQHzYjZDZQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> My first patch is mechanical and there are no changes in generated code.
It's not mechanical, as evidenced by all the problems people have spotted
looking at the code (presumably cases that don't apply on i386) and the
random inclusion of *_hidden_* changes with no apparent relation to the
main point of the patch.
> We can either revert my changes or fix my changes.
>
> I believe my change is an improvement and we should fix its shortcomings.
I think the fix process should not happen on master, but a separate
branch, with the changes being reverted until they have consensus.
This isn't a matter of fixing isolated bugs that a reviewer missed - if it
were just that, then fixing on master would be fine. It's a matter of
there being no consensus on the basic design of the changes or the overall
shape of the new interfaces being introduced (and no detailed review of
the changes either).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com