Fix Thumb-2 PIEs
rob at landley.net
Thu Dec 11 03:44:18 UTC 2008
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 19:17:53 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 December 2008 22:00, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Right now, there are still two "old" linuxthreads branches in uClibc, and
> > as far as I can tell we'll be supporting them in perpetuity. (For a
> > definition of "support" that involves leaving them alone unless somebody
> > complains.)
> We need to stop doing that, though.
I tried arguing that a couple months back. Good luck. :)
> We have "ond" and "new" vfprintf, "old" and "new" regex,
> "old" and "new" threads, "old" and "new" fnmatch.
> Let's just decide on something, and disable things which are
> really "old". Because currently, I need telepathic powers
> to figure out which regex to choose:
> Sometimes "old" is actually old and better be dropped,
> other times "old" is actually "stable and recommended",
> and "new" is "work in progress, and maybe developer was hit
> by the bus, nobody knows". For one, I do not know
> what vfprintf or regex to choose, I use rand().
Once you have multiple implementations going in parallel that don't share
code, it's an AMAZING PAIN to stop doing it again because somebody somewhere
will fight to keep the one they're using. (The multi-shell situation in
busybox is similar.)
The thing is, this sort of thing fragments your tester base. Each version has
different capabilities and different bugs. Size optimizations applied to one
aren't applicable to another. Work put in to 1 of 3 implementations is only
1/3 as effective...
> But users are even less likely than we to know what to choose.
> We, as developers, need to help them.
> It's not like disabling or even rm'ing one or the other
> is irreversible. It all will still be in a history.
> Just IMHO. Bernhard, I guess it's up to you to decide this.
I plead the fifth.
More information about the uClibc