From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25DC33858D39 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 18:38:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 25DC33858D39 Received: by mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com with SMTP id i6-20020a4ac506000000b0031c5ac6c078so10369498ooq.6 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 10:38:40 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6NdF3G6HsBLaBZoIfjC7oTpcXFatpC/fPDaIuYQnZmg=; b=oJgLXIYy9zSrDjNJyVtqSNuM0y844z4zyUmzhmWUzQI6stmYGnbRciTEdw6MLYXzi3 6Ewhrq4FPX1qW1Jg6ygc2QwtPLefwrnKgLGcQAGp2yV0wZHBBhszCRelFENQvxEYaH/M NDHgRHu+qJJjEHhYN9mivFiXS7IL4F4Ga+RmEydXzwoZNrN2IoqSqcplWC6jtAR4zIzC BYRBvY/SHfk0wzJcjEn1hZs9cVaBD7HnwMwb2NjZp6htU6iCNDYiBFUmHLoo30BQ0mHD v1taQoZschSwSv0fDb3DLUa4JWs8AW/njIbjxqqbsoHbKh+eZ0h7JKFwfgblqKCbJ3aT 9dpw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QGUDlxajzKPL0WbEa6qf8CX0YqzTPNH6YFKJjlG725HUukVkm u2tIkE0GJUefcmTX5otWTrkFkw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyvSFBoS//sS2npGHkT5sR2luI+4EdOhZshmhppBPejQ+f6Z7QRaCdb9VoFzX4wlcMpmbvFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:f104:b0:da:b3f:2b62 with SMTP id k4-20020a056870f10400b000da0b3f2b62mr343853oac.257.1646419119420; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 10:38:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2804:431:c7ca:2dcb:a992:742c:8048:43bc? ([2804:431:c7ca:2dcb:a992:742c:8048:43bc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l12-20020a056830154c00b005af943e7a4asm2613259otp.71.2022.03.04.10.38.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Mar 2022 10:38:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7751e73c-75b5-3356-0c94-5430b0b1378f@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:38:36 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove special flags of libc.5.so and libc.4.so Content-Language: en-US To: "Lucas A. M. Magalhaes" , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, fweimer@redhat.com, tuliom@ibm.com References: <87r1c9rmlz.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20211222153151.162136-1-lamm@linux.ibm.com> <20220302193714.5zvd635xjpbzjfc2@workbox> From: Adhemerval Zanella In-Reply-To: <20220302193714.5zvd635xjpbzjfc2@workbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 18:38:41 -0000 On 02/03/2022 16:37, Raoni Fassina Firmino wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 04:22:43PM -0300, AL glibc-alpha wrote: >> >> >> On 22/12/2021 12:31, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes via Libc-alpha wrote: >>> I've tested it in a AT build and was able to build and link programs as >>> expected. For other archs I try with build-many-glibcs.py, all >>> succeeded. >>> >>> Any other suggestions on how to test this? >>> >>> Florian am I missing something? Should we add a restriction to cache >>> just new libc6.so compatible libraries? >>> >>> -- 8< -- >>> >>> The older libcs version are obsolete for over twenty years now. This >>> commit removes special flags of libc.5.so and libc.4.so.. It assume that >>> all libraries cached are libc.6.so compatible and wrote FLAG_ELF_LIBC6. >>> >>> Tested on x86_64, powerpc, powerpc64 and powerpc64le. >>> Tested with build-many-glibcs.py for the other affected architectures. >> >> I think it makes sense to stop support libc.4 and libc.5 and assume >> FLAG_ELF_LIBC6 by ldconfig. >> >> I also think it should be safe to just get rid of the arch-specific >> SYSDEP_KNOWN_INTERPRETER_NAMES, at least in theory it should not be >> used by the cache (so there is not need to actually classify it). > > Lucas's RFC already removed it for a bunch of architectures, only > leaving i386, aarch64 and mips64, and If my grep did not failed me It > seems like the only uses of YSDEP_KNOWN_LIBRARY_NAMES and > SYSDEP_KNOWN_INTERPRETER_NAMES were in known_libs and interpreters > respectively, both removed in the RFC, so it seems that definitions can > be safely removed (in the context of the RFC). > > Not sure if there is a need for more opinions or consensus about this > RFC's idea and approach to move forward with a proper patch for review. > > I think the rationale of the patch is ok, it just need the the SYSDEP_KNOWN_LIBRARY_NAMES and SYSDEP_KNOWN_INTERPRETER_NAMES cleanup for aarch64, i386, and mips64.