Pierre Habouzit a écrit : > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:26:09AM +0200, Uwe Schindler wrote: >>> Tom Evans a écrit : >>>> When will this version be moved into stable/Etch? >>> This version (or a later one) will move to stable for Lenny, but will >>> never move to Etch, as it is now a released version. >> Somewhere in the past there was a very simple patch (look for "not_cancel") >> that worked for the 2.3 release of the glibc (Tom wrote that): >> >> "If I simply change (in linuxthreads/sysdep/unix/sysv/linux/not-cancel.h) >> from: >> >> # define waitpid_not_cancel(pid, stat_loc, options) \ >> INLINE_SYSCALL (osf_wait4, 4, pid, stat_loc, options, NULL) >> >> to: >> >> # define waitpid_not_cancel(pid, stat_loc, options) \ >> wait4( pid, stat_loc, options, NULL ) >> >> all is well - I understand the performance benefits of the inlining, >> but since x86 is NPTL anyway, perhaps this is an okay solution? >> >> I'm guessing that there is an Alpha-related optimizer bug perhaps? >> Or that the inline_syscall4 in sysdep/unix/alpha/sysdep.h is somehow >> broken?" > > >> Why was this patch never included for stable? > Because we weren't aware it existed ? Because no alpha machine is > available to developers for a year now ? > > You know we're not semi gods with an echelon trigger on any glibc > patch that floats in the intarweb. > > But if the patch is _indeed_ that simple, I truly believe we could > make it into etch-r1. >
Could you please try this patch instead: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/sysdeps/unix/alpha/sysdep.h.diff?r1=1.26&r2=1.26.2.1&cvsroot=glibc It looks a lot better, and it's always easier to convince the release managers to accept a patch if it has been accepted upstream first. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
