2.26 release blockers?

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 04/07/2017 14:51, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Saturday 01 July 2017 02:21 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> I would like add both C11 threads support [1] and the final patches
>> to finally remove the sysdep-cancel.h asm hackery [2].
>>
>> For C11 I think it generated a consensus that there is no impending
>> technical issues about current approach using underlying POSIX
>> primitives and Tovarld also think it is a good idea to add it on
>> 2.26.
> 
> Adhemerval and I discussed this on IRC earlier today and it looks to me
> like the C11 threads patches should not affect architecture testing
> beyond adding new symbols to the ABI.  I'm inclined to allow it as a
> freeze exception but I know Joseph has his reservations about it.
> Joseph, if you still object, could you elaborate on why you think this
> would affect architecture testing?  Overall the code impact is much less
> than some of the blockers currently approved given that it is a brand
> new ABI/API that is isolated from everything else in glibc.
> 
> Either way, it would be nice if someone could help review these (I'll
> give it a shot too later in the week, but I may need a second pair of
> eyes on some of them) so that it could make it early into 2.27 if we all
> end up agreeing that 2.26 is not a suitable target.
> 
> Siddhesh
> 

Thanks for bringing this up Siddhesh, if any is interested the latest
version of the patch is here [1].

I would also like to push the sysdep-cancel.h asm removal, but due
x32 concerns raised by H.J.Lu and my plan to send an update revision
today I think it can wait.  It still somewhat not intrusive, since the
changes I am planning is is just to create proper prototypes for
internal non-cancellable syscalls and it would be good to a simplified
2.26 as base for new ports inclusions.


[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-06/msg01413.html