This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- From: Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:05:39 +1000
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52E649BF dot 5020400 at archlinux dot org> <20140128205657 dot 16DBA74438 at topped-with-meat dot com> <52E9DEB7 dot 4000709 at redhat dot com> <52E9E84F dot 50907 at redhat dot com> <52EA682D dot 90900 at archlinux dot org> <52F03BEC dot 1020202 at archlinux dot org> <52F062C5 dot 6050705 at redhat dot com>
On 04/02/14 13:47, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 08:01 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> Update as of 2014-02-04:
>>
>> Fixed since last report:
>> - Patch for BZ #16046 (Static dlopen correction fallout fixes) has
>> landed
>> - All thread safety docs have landed
>>
>> Ongoing:
>> - PPC64/ELF2 ABI - Patches have been provided to set at 2.17
>
> There were 3 patches posted by Adhemerval.
>
> Roland reviewed the first patch.
>
> I reviewed the second and third patch.
>
> Adhemerval as one of the power machine maintainers can go ahead
> and check them in.
>
>> - TLS issues(?) - there have been calls for the changes to be reverted.
>
> What TLS issues are these? Can I help in any way?
>
This is regarding the TLS changes that broke LeakSanitizer. While
everyone has agreed to make a proper solution for glibc-2.20, there are
concerns expressed about whether the changes made in 2.19 should stay.
Joseph suggests reverting them[1] and Roland agreed[2]. Here is more
from Roland about the issue and concerns about breaking the ABI [3].
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00720.html
[2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00770.html
[3] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00719.html
As far as I see, there was no formal conclusion on what to do for
glibc-2.19 here. Hence the query in the status list.
Cheers,
Allan