linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NPTL support for the kernel

To: David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com>
Subject: Re: NPTL support for the kernel
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:21:58 -0500
Cc: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <423F77DF.2060808@avtrex.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20050316141151.GA23225@nevyn.them.org> <20050321203445.GA7082@nevyn.them.org> <423F7305.2030908@gentoo.org> <423F77DF.2060808@avtrex.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:41:51PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> Kumba wrote:
> >Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Ping?
> >>
> >
> >Doesn't this need the glibc side of things to be effective?, or is it 
> >testable  w/o that component?

It is testable independently.  Also, I posted the glibc bits last week.

> I think the main point is that it should not break existing code.

Of course.  It doesn't.  The only thing it could possibly break would
be four-argument clone (it's supposed to be five argument, and the
missing argument conventionally goes in the middle... oops).  But
I strongly believe nothing is yet using the four-argument form so I
synced MIPS with the rest of the world.

> We need NPTL support in all three of GCC, Linux kernel and glibc before 
> it can be tested.  If it doesn't break existing code, I think it should 
> go in the kernel so that we have something on which to test gcc and glibc.

GCC support was committed two weeks ago, BTW.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>