[git commit nptl_glibc_sync] Get new nptl building on SH4

Khem Raj raj.khem at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 17:53:59 UTC 2010


On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Salvatore CRO' <salvatore.cro at st.com> wrote:
> Khem Raj wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Salvatore CRO' <salvatore.cro at st.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2010 4:25 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO
>>>>> <carmelo.amoroso at st.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2010 3:24 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/commit/?id=ed0915ba70d0ff6ed0a78f45d46822763a580737
>>>>>>> branch:
>>>>>>> http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/commit/?id=refs/heads/nptl_glibc_sync
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Khem,
>>>>>> I have limited capabilities to contribute currently due to a healthy
>>>>>> issue at my shoulder, I'll ask some engineers in my team to do a lot
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> tests on sh4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks Carmelo. is it booting on sh yet or not ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> not yet tested... I'll let you know.
>>>>
>>>> carmelo
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> uClibc-cvs mailing list
>>>> uClibc-cvs at uclibc.org
>>>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc-cvs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Khem, Carmelo,
>>> I gave a boot on 7111 ST soc after building this branch and seems ok. I
>>> also
>>> did few (uClibc) testing with no issues.
>>>
>>
>> Great. Did the regression tests work well too ?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Salvo.
>>>
>>>
>
> Whole uClibc test suite done on sh with no regressions.

very good. The branch is not merged into original nptl branch
so it would be good that you can carry on testing the nptl branch now.
There are other changes done on top will need to be seen if they are ok
on SH4 or not.

>
> Salvo.
>


More information about the uClibc mailing list