The patch that you didn't know existed was included with the bug report.
I am trying the patch that Aurelien suggested - it does look like a
better solution - I was going to try to decode the inline assembler in
that area this weekend to see if there was a mistake.
There have been offers on the debian-alpha list for Alpha machine
donations - some of them decent enough machines.
What needs to happen for a machine to be useful for developers?
...tom
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
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.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
