Re: Ports status for 2.11 (was: Re: Will the alpha port be usable for 2.11?)

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Thanks. ?What are your plans regarding miscellaneous sysdeps files that
> have changed in libc over the past few years in ways that need
> corresponding hppa updates? ?(bits/fcntl.h is one of the most frequently
> changing, but probably not the only one. ?Some updates are perhaps less
> obvious - for example, fallocate64 exports
> <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-hacker/2009-05/msg00003.html> or ensuring
> that identifiers in headers that are not part of the public API, such as
> parameter names, have their proper leading "__". ?Certainly for
> fallocate64 you need to decide whether it is or is not exported at version
> 2.11.)

I have no general plans to fix the miscellaneous sysdep files that
need hppa updates.

If debian reports any serious problems and those problems are fixed by
updating sysdep files then I will fix them.

Otherwise, I have much higher priority issues to deal with on the hppa
port including fixes to gcj, libstdc++ and the kernel.

I do have plans to fix fcntl.h which is the most important of the
changed sysdep files.

My hppa ports tree has:
* fallocate64 patches exporting them at 2.11.
* fcntl.h patches to add missing defines.
* LIBGCC_S_SO fixes.
* __longjmp fixes.
* ____longjmp_chk implementation.
* Fix dl-trampoline.S pltexit and pltenter problems.
* -fPIE fixes.
* bits/socket.h fixes.

My hppa libc tree has:
* nptl pthread_create _S_G_U fixes.

I have also marked all the hppa issues with keywords glibc_2.11 or
milestone 2.12 to indicate where they are needed and when I plan to
fix them.

>> Unforutnately in addition to this I had to implement the
>> _STACK_GROWS_UP case for nptl/pthread_create.c, which is currently
>> #error "to do", therefore the hppa port will never compile with 2.11
>> because of this and upstream is already tagged.
>
> We know neither HPPA nor M68K can work perfectly with 2.11 tag, simply
> because the support for different libgcc_s sonames went into libc after
> that tag (but before the branch), and M68K also needs elf.h changes. ?But
> I'd hope they can work with future versions on 2.11 branch (whether or not
> there is a 2.11.1 release).

Yes, I agree, I will get the patches onto the 2.11 branch if the
branch maintainer agrees.

Cheers,
Carlos.