Testing glibc 2.24 on remaining machines.

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, David Miller wrote:

> Nothing done completely inside of glibc will support signals properly.
> Even the current locking in glibc deadlocks in several testcases
> because of this problem.
> 
> Like some other architectures in the same situation have done, we
> would need something in the kernel to implement locking properly
> and in a signal safe way.
> 
> And it's really hard to justify all of that work.

Then should we follow option (1) not further support pre-v9 sparc?  If so, 
much the same approach should be followed as for i386: make configure give 
an error when the compiler is configured for pre-v9; merge sysdeps 
directories so there are no longer separate sparcv8 and sparcv9 
subdirectories but sparc/sparc32 assumes v9; remove obsolete preprocessor 
conditionals such as in kernel-features.h.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com