This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: 2.31: < 2 weeks to go
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 18:59:34 +0000
- Subject: Re: 2.31: < 2 weeks to go
- Ironport-sdr: p7okgO2hkh3V/Zo4I8pfkFwi+6VswY3gDy4BP1N/hptriqiO9Z5tAb2w/8M+/K6oR9/lj9ztPc PSepbO1p/L+ShVoYbOyjUexEZC7pBXT0jGlXvIFBDIa2RgI2ByDTmzf6nJEe/qFgCgTAAIg4Td S/BL1S14IHigstQwVkLU1mVzw+AaAnSnDKfhvRyuEFg06dYey0VAKu3QciZ9RZLIaX8WEulSov R3Tm4S9XIItqbWtnBYttOAY08PyEGgSihKVkcxLZFn65ByZ2FCU0NF5XbzbfRjgrLml90T4BSx L0Y=
- Ironport-sdr: 6DpwWsROJ74MuSTM0Y66grzMcEWSbb2rfCNY9wgV+M02nA05upakRods/4RqfBEn+FKw9aTnLK 1Amq3fDFCFsp0hdh5RhLncqVmTJrlByMpAiciKj+Gdy0UZO6aYsPlj9nxni3Qrr29/Bj54D+mS 0OGhyakTmu5oG6PFQfXqsEb0HG1s6r8dn0kWYnzCW4tf6CJ6uOk7NljE3dIu5YZltUx49RVATn 62PbsjmPF15/l62z7z8pBz6pjYhM3OaZrhN1GHR0ecSGfiFUYNupFE/5eYU+Wpj3RN/A0efSGE DUA=
- References: <0645ee7d-59c9-cb2f-ebe5-ef613c8094cf@gotplt.org> <87v9qbgjco.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <f941ade4-8e30-4819-b3a8-43d904b4b313@gotplt.org>
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > What should we do about the built-in system call tables? I think it's
> > desirable to have this in the release to get a well-defined system call
> > profile after the the Y2038 changes. Otherwise, there will be a lot of
> > variance regarding the system calls glibc makes depending on which
> > version of the kernel headers glibc was built with.
> >
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-12/msg00567.html>
> >
> > The actual code changes (the first two patches) could go in before the
> > build-many-glibcs.py changes have been reviewed. I think the updating
> > logic now follows Joseph's suggestion, but I don't know if the changes I
> > did on build-many-glibcs.py are acceptable from a consistency/style
> > perspective.
>
> I took a quick look at the patches and the discussions earlier and it
> looked to me like they're headed in the right direction. Joseph, do you
> agree? If you don't have the bandwidth to do a full review, I can help
> with that.
The general approach seems plausible. I don't expect much time for patch
review while working on the GCC git conversion.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com