glibc 2.19 status?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 02/04/2014 11:02 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> 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?

No, that's everything.

Cheers,
Carlos.