On Saturday 20 December 2008 02:37:04 Carmelo Amoroso wrote: > Khem, Bernhard > IMO the effort required for merging new stuff (not bug but basically > cleanup, warning and so on) from trunk to nptl branch, is becoming > to huge, and it is not helping us into having a working NPTL branch > getting benefits from this. Guys are putting new changes into trunk > faster than me. > > Indeed we had a lot of problems in the nptl branch due to changes > in signal handling for example (there are still few files that I did > not merge because they caused nptl branch stopping to work). > > At this stage my proposal is to start *now* putting TLS/futexes/NPTL code > into the trunk.
I believe I've been saying this for 3 years now. Please, please, please merge into trunk. The code doesn't _matter_ until you do. The number of people who have ever tested this branch in its entire history is probably a single digit number. You'd get a lot _more_ interest if it was just one big patch, ala squashfs. (That way we could at least review it vs a known, if obsolete, base.) > We could fix bugs in NPTL code (i.e. signal handling changes) directly > working on trunk. I did not expect any changes into ld.so for TLS. > We need to look carefully at cancellation handling, but this will get > benefit from having all the code into trunk, because there are more guys > looking at this than those using nptl branch. Alelujiah, preach it brother! > The current status of the nptl branch is: Irrelevant. > Please comments are welcome. Do it do it do it! Please please please please please. Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
