* patch lost?
@ 2004-11-30 0:46 David Mosberger
2004-11-30 3:05 ` Roland McGrath
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Mosberger @ 2004-11-30 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-hacker
The patch in this mail:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2004-09/msg00103.html
Seems to have been dropped (without any comments or followups).
Could it be applied, please? Without it, glibc won't build with GCC
versions that use a separate libunwind.
Thanks,
--david
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: patch lost?
2004-11-30 0:46 patch lost? David Mosberger
@ 2004-11-30 3:05 ` Roland McGrath
2004-11-30 5:28 ` David Mosberger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roland McGrath @ 2004-11-30 3:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davidm; +Cc: libc-hacker
The fact that noone has addressed your bug ahead of the rest of the issues
in the queue does not constitute something being lost.
If you want to keep track of something, use bugzilla.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: patch lost?
2004-11-30 3:05 ` Roland McGrath
@ 2004-11-30 5:28 ` David Mosberger
2004-11-30 5:54 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Mosberger @ 2004-11-30 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roland McGrath; +Cc: davidm, libc-hacker
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:05:40 -0800, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> said:
Roland> If you want to keep track of something, use bugzilla.
I see somebody already created a bugzilla bug-report for this issue:
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=461
May I ask why it is taking so long (almost two months already) to get
such a seemingly simple patches into glibc? Is there something
controversial in the patch?
Thanks,
--david
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: patch lost?
2004-11-30 5:28 ` David Mosberger
@ 2004-11-30 5:54 ` H. J. Lu
2004-11-30 6:04 ` David Mosberger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2004-11-30 5:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davidm; +Cc: Roland McGrath, libc-hacker
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:28:43PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:05:40 -0800, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> said:
>
> Roland> If you want to keep track of something, use bugzilla.
>
> I see somebody already created a bugzilla bug-report for this issue:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=461
>
> May I ask why it is taking so long (almost two months already) to get
> such a seemingly simple patches into glibc? Is there something
> controversial in the patch?
I am afraid that there is another gcc bug which has to be fixed first:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18153
My patch is still waiting for review. Otherwise, many DSOs from glibc
will depend on libunwind.so.7 which isn't used at all.
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: patch lost?
2004-11-30 5:54 ` H. J. Lu
@ 2004-11-30 6:04 ` David Mosberger
2004-11-30 15:05 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Mosberger @ 2004-11-30 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H. J. Lu; +Cc: davidm, Roland McGrath, libc-hacker
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:54:43 -0800, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:
HJ> I am afraid that there is another gcc bug which has to be fixed
HJ> first:
HJ> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18153
HJ> My patch is still waiting for review. Otherwise, many DSOs from
HJ> glibc will depend on libunwind.so.7 which isn't used at all.
That's no reason to not apply the glibc patch, no? At the moment,
it's simply impossible to build glibc with an unwind-enabled GCC.
--david
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: patch lost?
2004-11-30 6:04 ` David Mosberger
@ 2004-11-30 15:05 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2004-11-30 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davidm; +Cc: Roland McGrath, libc-hacker
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:04:09PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:54:43 -0800, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:
>
> HJ> I am afraid that there is another gcc bug which has to be fixed
> HJ> first:
>
> HJ> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18153
>
> HJ> My patch is still waiting for review. Otherwise, many DSOs from
> HJ> glibc will depend on libunwind.so.7 which isn't used at all.
>
> That's no reason to not apply the glibc patch, no? At the moment,
Not at all.
> it's simply impossible to build glibc with an unwind-enabled GCC.
I'd like to see both patches applied.
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-30 15:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-11-30 0:46 patch lost? David Mosberger
2004-11-30 3:05 ` Roland McGrath
2004-11-30 5:28 ` David Mosberger
2004-11-30 5:54 ` H. J. Lu
2004-11-30 6:04 ` David Mosberger
2004-11-30 15:05 ` H. J. Lu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).