This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] PowerPC: Define __PTHREAD_MUTEX_HAVE_ELISION to 0
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:13:49 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC: Define __PTHREAD_MUTEX_HAVE_ELISION to 0
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <532C872D dot 8030107 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53318BC9 dot 40404 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <mvmwqfil26w dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <5331A8BF dot 3050401 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140325162204 dot GH1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <5331B257 dot 6080804 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140325165552 dot 5013774479 at topped-with-meat dot com> <5331B6E4 dot 5040503 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140325170948 dot 0E0A574485 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 25-03-2014 14:09, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> On 25-03-2014 13:55, Roland McGrath wrote:
>>>> I would prefer this approach instead of create/install another header.
>>> Why? It leaves a place for typo bugs to sneak in on new architectures.
>>>
>> I see a plus header another burden for arch ports to be aware of. GLIBC
>> is already quite complex of required arch depends files and subly
>> non-arch files that arch maintainer also need to be aware one. I
>> personally not found of add another one.
> I fail to see how a subtle and typo-prone requirement on some other
> existing arch-specific header is better than a typo-proof clear requirement
> on a new arch-specific header.
>
It is a trade-off in my view, but I understand the direction of the -Wundef work
for the typo-proof. I will check on the elision-especific header.