Rob Landley wrote: > 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.
ok, but just fyi there are real STB products of ST customers that have uclibc-nptl for sh4... so it is really running. > 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. > ok ok ok ok :) > Rob > carmelo _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
