Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Steven J. Hill
Mike Frysinger wrote: >> clean trunk branch is the way to go. >> Do whatever you guys want and I will deal with it. > > this isnt exactly a helpful stance to take ... > Sorry for the shortness of the response, but with my 2 year old son screaming next to me to play chase, I could not get much mor

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: > seems like it'd be sane to bring at least Joseph and Carmelo on board ? Note that Jim Blandy and Paul Brook did much more of the ARM work than I did, so they would probably be better placed for this merging. I don't think any of us have SVN write acc

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread rafael2k
Em Domingo 06 Maio 2007 08:20, Mike Frysinger escreveu: > first, the status of linuxthreads ... when i first introduced the latest > version of linuxthreads, the upstream status was fully maintained and no > plans for this to end ... nptl wasnt even being considered. the idea was > that the versio

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 06 May 2007, Steven J. Hill wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > I don't think revisiting the unfortunate circumstances is going to get > > us anywhere. Is there some way we can move on, and end up with a > > unified port? I don't care how we end up with an up-to-date branch as > > lon

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 06 May 2007, rafael2k wrote: > but one thing I'd really like to ask for is to not remove linuxthreads at > all (nor in any near future), just like glibc did in 2.5 - so, w/ no > linuxthreads support, no kernel 2.4 support, wich is very important for old > pcs (486s)... there are no plans

Re: uClibc 0.9.29 is out

2007-05-06 Thread Christian MICHON
woot, and congrats On 5/6/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tagged, branched, and posted ... 0.9.29 is up > -mike > > ___ > uClibc mailing list > uClibc@uclibc.org > http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc > > -- Christian ___

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Steven J. Hill
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > I don't think revisiting the unfortunate circumstances is going to get > us anywhere. Is there some way we can move on, and end up with a > unified port? I don't care how we end up with an up-to-date branch as > long as we do; from my experience with long-running bra

RE: What is XMALLOC and how it compares with malloc?

2007-05-06 Thread Edward Huang
Dear David, Mike, Kevin, etc Thank you all for quick responses. Mike and David were right, it is a wrapper in rdesktop.c, thanks for pointing it out. Some of the code used Malloc, some used Xmalloc. So I've made it consistently use xmalloc as it has error checking Stil getting segmentation fa

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote: > > The ARM NPTL work was based on trunk at that time (and subsequently merged > > from newer trunk) precisely because the incomplete and undocumented merges > > made it infeasible to work based on the NPTL branch without getting >

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Steven J. Hill wrote: > > The ARM NPTL work was based on trunk at that time (and subsequently merged > > from newer trunk) precisely because the incomplete and undocumented merges > > made it infeasible to work based on the NPTL branch without getting > > regressions relativ

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Steven J. Hill
> I'm still concerned about the incomplete and undocumented status of merges > from trunk into this branch. If I diff libc/sysdeps/linux/arm/, say, > between trunk and branch, I see several changes that are reversions of > patches made on trunk months ago, despite the last "Merge from trunk" >

Re: posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: > the plan for NPTL is to get the extraneous ports and patchsets (like arm and > sh) floating around merged into the uClibc-nptl branch. then we need to get I'm still concerned about the incomplete and undocumented status of merges from trunk into thi

posix threading plans

2007-05-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
first, the status of linuxthreads ... when i first introduced the latest version of linuxthreads, the upstream status was fully maintained and no plans for this to end ... nptl wasnt even being considered. the idea was that the version of linuxthreads we had in our tree was pretty outdated and

uClibc 0.9.29 is out

2007-05-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
tagged, branched, and posted ... 0.9.29 is up -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc

Re: [PATCH] Avoid near-infinite looping in __gen_tempname

2007-05-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 02 May 2007, Nickolai Zeldovich wrote: > Having a bad patch day apparently. Attached is a version that compiles. thanks, should be fixed in svn now -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ uClibc maili

Re: ld preload and threads

2007-05-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 03 May 2007, Harald Krammer wrote: > I have a question about LD_PRELOAD. Is it possible to use pthread > functions for preloaded libs or exists any restriction for that? there should be no such restriction on libraries with LD_PRELOAD -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digita