From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-83202-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 47731 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2017 04:29:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 45106 invoked by uid 89); 16 Aug 2017 04:28:58 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Wednesday
X-HELO: homiemail-a114.g.dreamhost.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Multiarch hooks for memcpy variants
To: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>,
 Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>, "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
References: <DB6PR0801MB20534ED1010DDF1B033821EE83890@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <18d2fdf8-ca55-1ded-fa66-3509b3bcf8fe@gotplt.org> <598DF02B.8010607@arm.com>
 <CAKCAbMg27DXDe=5vCCtBAW-g5BUkHKPb=_VTV7kr6cq_U91-Cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4072a19f-eecb-8cdd-889f-46b4c8b968b4@gotplt.org>
 <CAKCAbMh8=u27ZcS9La4SdQ3UiHi76TZdv_KSCpX0pkY8WMohOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB6PR0801MB20538D64F211A965ED3E806D838C0@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <8ce803fd-37d2-d249-9953-1ad60be34518@gotplt.org> <5991A39B.3050202@arm.com>
 <ac742a09-397b-ee93-b5ad-359efa8c9157@gotplt.org> <5991AB12.6070102@arm.com>
 <32bab61d-9c82-ae4f-5580-9c1c556bbfaf@gotplt.org>
 <DB6PR0801MB2053CBC3F9471F55B48C49D5838D0@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
Message-ID: <ab0aac72-5ada-8b78-0188-11ef4c4f0633@gotplt.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 04:29:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0801MB2053CBC3F9471F55B48C49D5838D0@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00618.txt.bz2

On Wednesday 16 August 2017 03:15 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> I'm not sure what the argument is here, do we (a) backport ifuncs to
> older GLIBCs or do (b) distros upgrade to the latest GLIBC but nothing else?

Backport IFUNCs to older glibcs since it does not introduce new ABI;
upgrading to latest glibc introduces new ABI, which server distros will
almost never do.

Siddhesh