[uClibc] RE: [uClibc-cvs] svn commit: trunk/uClibc/ldso/ldso: arm cris i386 m68k mips powerpc sh sh64 etc...

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:40:43AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > On Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:25:10AM -0700, jocke at uclibc.org wrote:
> > > > I probably broke one or two archs(only tested PPC) so please
> > > > try and report problems. For a report to be useful you need
> > > > to enable __SUPPORT_LD_DEBUG_EARLY__ and __SUPPORT_LD_DEBUG__
> > > 
> > > I can confirm that at least mips and x86 are broken...
> > [SNIP]
> > 
> > x86, MIPS and PPC should be OK now. No reports on the other
> > arches CRIS, ARM, SPARC, M68K, SH and SH64 (Hint hint :)
> > 
> The SH changes look ok, but I have not had a chance to test them yet.

Good.

> 
> The SH64 changes look completely broken, these changes don't even use the
> right ISA, there's no way for this to even pretend to work. Forcing it
> into SHcompact for the inline assembly bits would work in theory, but
> would be so slow it wouldn't be worth the effort.

yes, I had problems to identify relevant parts from glibc and it shows :(

> 
> It would be nice if these sort of changes would be posted to the list or
> CC'ed to concerned parties before going in so there is some time to
> review the changes and post feedback _before_ changes are applied
> (reading this stuff on uClibc-cvs first is really irritating,
> particularly when a change is obviously broken).

yeah, I should have mailed the list first in this case, sorry. Regarding mailing the
"concerned parties" it is easier said than done. I am not aware of any file/list that
names "concerned parties" for uClibc. I think that the uClibc ml will have to do.

> 
> I'll try to take a look at these and get them fixed up in the next week
> or so, once I am able to do builds again..

Good, thanks