On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 17:20 +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday 06 May 2007, Steven J. Hill wrote: > > > >> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> > >>> I don't think revisiting the unfortunate circumstances is going to get > >>> us anywhere. Is there some way we can move on, and end up with a > >>> unified port? I don't care how we end up with an up-to-date branch as > >>> long as we do; from my experience with long-running branch development > >>> I tend to think that Joseph is right and that rebasing on top of a > >>> clean trunk branch is the way to go. > >>> > >> Do whatever you guys want and I will deal with it. > >> > > > > this isnt exactly a helpful stance to take ... > > > > so what i'm hearing is: > > - mips/nptl only exists in branches/uClibc-nptl/ > > - the uClibc-nptl branch is in an unrecoverable state compared to trunk > > - arm/nptl exists against trunk > > - sjhill's work and codesourcery's work have some design decisions that > > need > > to be reconciled > > > > Carmelo: what's the status of the SuperH stuff ? > > > Hi Mike, > here it's the SuperH (specifically sh4 core) status: > - code base is uClibc-nptl branch: svn revision 17694 (Feb 2007) > **** BUT **** > - all patch I've already posted to the ML and committed to trunk (by > you, Jocke, and others) are included > into nptl port (some of them are sh4 specific, some other general)
For what it is worth, I prefer Carmelos changes to the _dl_find_hash() function. I would like to see the common changes for NTPL integrated first. Also, since this is THE feature for the next release, why not work in trunk? Jocke _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
