Re: glibc 2.5.1 and 2.6.1

[Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net>]

Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:33:33PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have tagged today glibc-2_5_1 and glibc-2_6_1.
>> What's the current status of ports branches?  Are they taggable
>> right away, or is there any plan to make them work soon?
>> Both 2.5.1 and 2.6.1 contain a backport of the ld.so locking fixes,
>> so there is some per-arch work needed (THREAD_GSCOPE_* in tls.h
>> and on TLS_TCB_AT_TP arches also add gscope_flag to tcbhead_t).
>> There were no changes on the release branches which require
>> arch specific updates since Jul 12th or so, the more recent changes
>> were all generic code only.
> 
> I personally don't have time to keep up with ports release branches.
> If someone else is interested in updating the branches, I'll be glad
> to commit patches on their behalf.

AFAIK THREAD_GSCOPE_* stuff is already in the SVN for arm, mips and
hppa, so it's just a question of merging them into the branches.

I can send you a patch for those 3 architectures.

> In fact, if someone else has enough time to work on ports in general,
> I would be happy to hand off my various ports batons.
> 
>> What about LinuxThreads?
> 
> LinuxThreads is dead since October :-) It looks like the problematic
> construct has since been removed on trunk (rtld-lowlevel.h's mrlocks),
> if someone wants to resurrect LinuxThreads, but I don't plan on doing
> so myself.  I do know we're going to need a newer glibc for m68k at
> some point, so we may end up fixing LinuxThreads if there's still no
> sign of an NPTL port.
> 

We have some patch in Debian to get LinuxThreads working with glibc 2.5
and even 2.6.1 for architectures that have TLS.

Is it worth getting those patches into the CVS?


-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32@debian.org         | aurelien@aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net