This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- From: "Winfried Magerl" <winfried dot magerl at t-online dot de>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Ryan Arnold <rsa at us dot ibm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:23:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: Update on freeze status of glibc 2.18?
- References: <51B65DE4 dot 4010107 at redhat dot com>
Hi,
refering the mail-thread with subject:
gcc-4.8 + tree-loop-distribute-patterns breaks glibc-2.18
still no way to run testsuite for glibc-2.18 with -O3 (which enables
tree-loop-distribute-patterns for gcc).
At least a note in the release-notes would be necessary to explain
why gcc-4.7 + glibc-2.18 + -O3 is a bad idea.
regards
winfried
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:14:44PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Community,
>
> How are we doing with 2.18?
>
> Are we ready for the freeze?
>
> Ryan,
>
> I see the IBM work is out of the release blockers section.
>
> Is everything done there?
>
> Joseph,
>
> I see you checking in more fixes to libm testing, are these
> things you want in 2.18?
>
> Are we ready to freeze?
>
> Carlos,
>
> Yes, talking to myself.
>
> The Intel TSX lock elision patches are stuck on consensus
> for env var usage to tune runtime behaviour.
>
> By Wendesday I should have the list of existing env vars
> documented and if they meet our new criteria (many of them
> don't).
>
> Present consensus is not against the use of env vars to
> tune runtime behaviour, but I've collected all of the
> requirements from various contributors here:
> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/TuningLibraryRuntimeBehavior#How.3F
>
> Siddhesh,
>
> What's the status of the API to get and set default thread attributes?
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.