This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[PATCH 0/6] Automatically test IFUNC implementations
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 07:38:17 -0700
- Subject: [PATCH 0/6] Automatically test IFUNC implementations
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 15:06:14 H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:17 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Carlos O'Donell
>> >
>> > <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com>
> wrote:
>> >>> So, you're building two libcs and one has this just extra symbol?
>> >>> In that case I suggest to build only one libc and have the symbol
>> >>> exported for everybody with a version in the namespace
>> >>> GLIBC_PRIVATE. My fear is that the duplicate building cases us
>> >>> more harm than good...
>> >>
>> >> I agree. We need to ship what we test. I don't want to see two
>> >> libc's built.>
>> > That was my original patch:
>> >
>> > http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2010-11/msg00039.html
>> >
>> > But it was rejected. I can go back to the old scheme, but always
>> > add __libc_func@GLIBC_PRIVATE when multi-arch is enabled.
>>
>> I updated hjl/ifunc/test branch to put __libc_func in libc.so
>> with version GLIBC_PRIVATE.
>
> Could you send a clean patch, please? You added a patch that removes
> changes and thus makes reviewing hard.
>
> I agree with Ulrich's comment from 2010-11 that your patch is the right
> way forward, so let's clean this up properly...
>
> I suggest you send one patch that includes the framework and a single
> test using it. Once that's in, let's tackle the others...
>
I cleaned up hjl/ifunc/test branch. I break my patches into 6 pieces.
Thanks.
--
H.J.