From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21810 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2012 03:41:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 21802 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2012 03:41:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f54.google.com) (209.85.210.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:41:31 +0000 Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so958629dad.13 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:41:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.72.70 with SMTP id b6mr1566920pbv.58.1335411691353; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.48.8 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:41:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F9515D5.60804@redhat.com> References: <4F886201.3040200@redhat.com> <4F886277.6000006@redhat.com> <20120413173512.5D52B2C074@topped-with-meat.com> <4F9515D5.60804@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New path for ld.so on ARM hard fp From: "Carlos O'Donell" To: Andrew Haley Cc: Roland McGrath , libc-ports@sourceware.org, steve.mcintyre@linaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/14/2012 05:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Roland McGrath w= rote: >>>> Mmm, Joseph is away. =A0Would one of the regular ARM libc maintainers >>>> like to pick this up? >>> >>> Only Joseph is authoritative. >> >> The distro community has reached consensus. >> >> IMO the glibc community should rely on the experience of the distro >> community to guide us on such issues. >> >> I plan to create the change, test it, post the patch, ask for review >> and commit as long as others don't see anything technically wrong with >> this change. >> >> During that time I will attempt to get Joseph's feedback on the >> change, but may fail to do so. I don't see that this blocks the patch >> checkin to our development *trunk*. > > What's happening with this? I just finished a set of WIP patches for this. I'll post them tomorrow morn= ing. Cheers, Carlos.