glibc 2.19 status?

[Allan McRae]

On 05/02/14 10:12, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Allan McRae wrote:
> 
>> Joseph suggests reverting them[1] and Roland agreed[2].  Here is more
>> from Roland about the issue and concerns about breaking the ABI [3].
>>
>> [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00720.html
>> [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00770.html
>> [3] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00719.html
>>
>> As far as I see, there was no formal conclusion on what to do for
>> glibc-2.19 here.  Hence the query in the status list.
> 
> Well, what we should not do is sit around indefinitely delaying the 
> release!  Revert the changes, run the testsuite on x86_64 and x86, commit 
> the reversion and start the process for the actual release.  It's clear we 
> do not have consensus to keep the changes in 2.19, which is what matters.
> 

On the allan/revert-TLS-changes branch, I have reverted:

"Async-signal safe TLS." (7f507ee1)
"Patch 2/4 of the effort to make TLS access async-signal-safe." (1f33d36a)
"Patch 3/4 of the effort to make TLS access async-signal-safe." (35e8f7ab)
"Patch [1/4] async-signal safe TLS." (69a17d9d)
"BZ 16133 has been fixed (async signal safe TLS)." (a494421f)

This builds and passes the test-suite on i686 and x86_64.

Are all the patches involved requiring reverted, or am I being too heavy
handed?

Allan