This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] libio: fmemopen rewrite to POSIX compliance
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:56:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] libio: fmemopen rewrite to POSIX compliance
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53B3FB30 dot 6010201 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53BAE045 dot 6010609 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53C3C158 dot 9060408 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1407162119480 dot 22313 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <53C81AB3 dot 1030409 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53CE6041 dot 9030101 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53D63C85 dot 3080602 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
On 07/28/2014 08:05 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 22-07-2014 09:59, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 17-07-2014 15:49, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> On 16-07-2014 18:20, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>>> This patch looks like it needs updating for hppa now having its own
>>>> libc.abilist.
>>>>
>>> Thanks, I though I have covered all abi files. What about the implementation itself?
>>>
>> Ping about patch contents.
>>
> Ping. I have update my branch azanella/fmemopen.
>
I started reviewing this and IMO it's going to take
more time than we have during the freeze.
I see no strong or compelling argument to put it
into 2.20.
If it went into 2.21 we could test it in rawhide and
make sure nothing else was broken.
If I've learned anything from Siddhesh's changes
in the libio code it's that nothing is as easy as
you think and distribution testing is critical
to finding issues.
My strong recommendation is that this get deferred
until 2.21.
Unless you have done distribution testing already?
Cheers,
Carlos.