Re: [uclibc-ng-devel] preparing for release
Hello, On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:43:20 -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 11/29/2016 09:31 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS > > before doing it. > > > > I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and > > the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough. > > > > Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default. > > > > Attached is a patch. > > > > Any comments? > > > > best regards > > Waldemar > > I welcome this change - is there going to be impact on downstream projects > like > busybox. What if it some disables CONFIG_LFS inside busybox ? In Buildroot, we have dropped the ability to disable LFS since March 2015. It was really too annoying to maintain the !LFS case, for no real benefit. So I'm completely fine with uClibc-ng dropping !LFS support upstream, since Buildroot no longer cares about this possibility. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com ___ devel mailing list devel@uclibc-ng.org http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [uclibc-ng-devel] preparing for release
Opps, didn't notice Vineet has already answered :) -Alexey On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 12:25 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Waldemar, > > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 06:31 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS > > before doing it. > > > > I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and > > the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough. > > > > Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default. > > > > Attached is a patch. > > > > Any comments? > > Looks good to me, thought maybe Vineet has another opinion on that. > > -Alexey ___ devel mailing list devel@uclibc-ng.org http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [uclibc-ng-devel] preparing for release
Hi Waldemar, On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 06:31 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > Hi, > > I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS > before doing it. > > I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and > the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough. > > Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default. > > Attached is a patch. > > Any comments? Looks good to me, thought maybe Vineet has another opinion on that. -Alexey ___ devel mailing list devel@uclibc-ng.org http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [uclibc-ng-devel] [RFC PATCH v4 1/1] libpthread: Fix inclusion of unwind code.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:40:01AM +0100, thus spake Waldemar Brodkorb: > Hi Ignacy, Hi Waldemar, > Ignacy Gawędzki wrote, > > > Since librt and libpthread are now integrated into libc, including > > unwind-resume and unwind-forcedunwind implementations of unwind code > > makes no sense. Only unwind-forcedunwind is now included with > > functions hidden to avoid them overriding the ones from libgcc_s. > > I tested the patch and I think I will push it in the next days. Nice. > Sorry that it took a while, but the removal of the test suite > took a while. Now the test suite is compiled as a normal software > package and not with the initial gcc. That's definitely the right way to go. > Therefore no regressions seen with your patch. I'm happy to hear that. =) > Any other news to the patch? No. We've been using it on uClibc-ng 1.0.18 in-house for weeks without any noticeable problem. Regards, Ignacy -- Ignacy Gawędzki R Engineer Green Communications ___ devel mailing list devel@uclibc-ng.org http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
