Re: ld.so GNU hash support
Thanks Carmelo. If next release is going to be out of uClibc-NPTL branch, why are we still 1. Not merging this branch with trunk 2. Committing patches only in trunk IIUC, NPTL support is fully configurable, in that case both of these developments (NPTL and non-NPTL) should be able to co-exist on a branch. Thanks, Nitin - Original Message - From: Carmelo AMOROSO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: uclibc uclibc@uclibc.org Cc: Peter S. Mazinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 3:37 AM Subject: ld.so GNU hash support Hi All, just to make you aware of I'm working (at STMicroelectronics) to add the support for the GNU hash style into the dynamic linker. A first implementation is working but needs to be reviewed, and to be fully tested. It is based on uclibc-nptl port for sh4 (www.stlinux.com). Shortly I'll post a patch to add this support to the trunk, as a first draft to share the implementation with the community. Best regards, Carmelo ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: Now I'm curious...
Hello Steven, IIUC, 0.9.30 will come out of uClibc-NPTL branch? Can you post your ARM and SH4 patches (which are based on uClibc-NPTL branch) on this mailing list or put them in download area? Regards, Nitin Steven J. Hill wrote: On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:52:11PM +0200, Christian MICHON wrote: so, the NPTL stuff is ready... My branch contains a fully working NPTL for the MIPS architecture only. I have patches from CodeSourcery for ARM and ST Microelectronics for SuperH 4. Those are the only three architectures supported at this time. is it fully available somewhere now or it cannot be released ? The MIPS stuff is the 'uClibc-NPTL' branch. ARM and SH4 are in my mail folders somewhere if you are interested. -Steve ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: Now I'm curious...
Hello Rob, I am curious now to find out if your curiosity got answered from this discussion? If yes, Could you please share your conclusions about uClibc future? Regards, Nitin Rob Landley wrote: On Wednesday 05 September 2007 5:18:32 am Denys Vlasenko wrote: Can you give me Peter's email address? It hasn't changed since he used to post here. Peter S. Mazinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: Now I'm curious...
- Original Message - From: Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Christian MICHON [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: uclibc@uclibc.org Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:45 AM Subject: Re: Now I'm curious... On Monday 03 September 2007 4:08:06 am Christian MICHON wrote: On 9/2/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (...) I'm poking Peter to put out a release. I'll let you know if he does. (I'd happily send _him_ a cake, but he appears to be in Europe...) Hi Rob, and why not allowing us to peek at his 1194 commits instead ? Because he got roundly chewed out here and was essentially told to go away by at least two high-profile commiters, and Erik never stepped up to defend him, so he took his ball and went home? Now we're noticing that it was, in fact, a nice ball. I agree that Peter was a valuable and aggressive contributor. It's sad that instead of communicating each other's concerns, high-profile committer(s) snatched psm's commit rights. IIRC, Peter got into trouble as his changes were huge, hard to review and some time broke the build and/or compatability. I am sure now PSM can very well contribute to uClibc and give it its glory back. I vote for offering him a maintainer position again. Regards, NK ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: futexes, PI and uclibc
On Monday 27 August 2007 5:01:13 pm Steven Rostedt wrote: Hi all, I'm writing a chapter in the upcoming revision of Building Embedded Linux Systems. In the chapter I talk about futexes and the new Priority Inheritance support (robust futexes as well). This is only supported if the libc supports it too. So my question is, 1) Does uClibc support futexes The NPTL branch (which is slated to become 0.9.30) does. 0.9.29 doesn't. http://kernel.org/doc/ols/2006/linuxsymposium_procv1-pages-409-420.pdf http://kernel.org/doc/ols/2006/slides/sjh-ols-2006-presentation.odp Are you guys planning to merge NPTL branch to release 0.9.30? Which architectures will be supported? I remember seeing support for arm/thumb, ppc, mips in various branches/emails. 2) Does it support PI futexes 3) Does it support robust futexes 4) if not, will it support it in the future Not sure about #2 and #3, but #4 is yes. What are the approx. plans for #2 and #3? Is it going to be a port from glibc? Sorry, about asking so many questions, but these sort of questions have been raised many times in last 2 years and I would like to request that uclibc maintainers need to address users concern. Last year Montavista tried to contribute ARM/Thumb nptl support in uClibc along with Codesourcery, but the effort was curbed as it was promised that mips nptl branch will pick up and merge with trunk. It's discouraging for other people to use and contribute in uClibc, if such support (NPTL) is missing and patches are not accepted appropriately. Regards, Nitin ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
