glibc 2.36 - Slushy freeze (3 weeks to release)

[Xi Ruoyao]

On Tue, 2022-07-12 at 14:42 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote:

> It's generally nice to be able to remove dubious/superfluous/unused 
> code, but doing so must not negatively affect users. I'm personally in
> support of removing such code, but as others have pointed out, it's 
> unfortunate that the LoongArch port turns out to have "inherited" the 
> wart from elsewhere, so the removal should not be done lightly (and 
> break users' systems).

I can live with either

(1) Fix Binutils-2.39 ASAP and remove R_LARCH_NONE handling in Glibc. 
And document "To build Glibc-2.36 or any code link to Glibc-2.36 for
LoongArch, Binutils >= 2.39 is needed."
(2) Work around R_LARCH_NONE in Glibc rtld code.

The advantage of (1) is we can get rid of "some stupid code" and make
some marginal performance gain.  The disadvantage is we are too close to
the deadline (glibc-2.36 and binutils-2.39 due date) and if we fail
we'll wait for another 6 months to upstream Glibc.

But, "just remove R_LARCH_NONE in Glibc rtld and tell everyone to build
Glibc-2.36 (and everything link to it) for LoongArch with
/path/to/not/reviewed/binutils.git/some-fancy-branch" is not acceptable
to me.


-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University