On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > I don't know how this might relate to > > <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15119> (see > > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-01/msg00084.html> and > > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-02/msg00021.html> and the rest > > of that thread). But my preference for how to address this is definitely > > to move to unifying lowlevellock.[ch] files across as many architectures > > as possible - which requires someone to understand the differences and > > produce a careful analysis that shows what the best form for generic files > > is and what cases actually require architecture-specific files to override > > those generic files (preferably overriding only the bits that need > > overriding). > > Yeap, it's the same issue in the PR and same solution as in this thread. > Unfortunately, the previous discussion veered off towards sparc away > from ARM and got forgotten.
The present thread is specifically discussing lowlevellock.c, but Carlos suggested in the previous discussion that the real issue was in __lll_timedlock in lowlevellock.h. I think both files need unification across architectures. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc