Mark Hatle wrote: > > The atonicity patches had not been submitted back to glibc due to there being > now way for me to show it was needed, and also that it ONLY affects the 405 > CPU, > which isn't the main target of glibc. > > We are currently working on revising our glibc patches to the current CVS > version, and if a new patch is required I'll make sure it gets posted here. I > really don't know the best way to handle this in a community glibc/gcc realm. > I'd almost like to wait and see what the GCC maintainers response is. > Specifically how they are going to accept the patch. Then we propose a > similar > thing to the glibc folks, explain the problem and hope they accept the patch > as > well.
Mark, I've rediffed your glibc patch and made it conditional on defined(__PPC405__); result at http://www.kegel.com/xgcc3/glibc-2.2.5-ppc405erratum77.patch I haven't tested it yet, but something like that should make the maintainers happy. What do you think? Also, according to http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html, patches for bugs are more likely to be accepted if there is a bug report in gnats, so I opened a bug for stdlibc++ http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7383 and one for glibc at http://bugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&pr=4155 They also won't accept patches unless they've been thoroughly tested, so let's agree on gcc and glibc patches, and use them for a few months. If no problems pop up, let's submit them. I've updated http://www.kegel.com/xgcc3/ppc405erratum77.html with the above information. - Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
