posix threading plans

Daniel Jacobowitz drow at false.org
Sun May 6 15:42:35 UTC 2007


On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote:
> > The ARM NPTL work was based on trunk at that time (and subsequently merged 
> > from newer trunk) precisely because the incomplete and undocumented merges 
> > made it infeasible to work based on the NPTL branch without getting 
> > regressions relative to trunk.
> > 
> No, when I began the NPTL work there was no one from Code Sourcery that
> even hinted another architecture was being worked on.

May I point out that these two statements don't disagree?  When you
began the NPTL work we weren't working on an ARM NPTL port.  It wasn't
until a whole lot later.  I assure you, if we'd been working on one
ourselves back when you were asking me NPTL questions, I'd have let
you know.  We'd have been much happier working together.

I don't think revisiting the unfortunate circumstances is going to get
us anywhere.  Is there some way we can move on, and end up with a
unified port?  I don't care how we end up with an up-to-date branch as
long as we do; from my experience with long-running branch development
I tend to think that Joseph is right and that rebasing on top of a
clean trunk branch is the way to go.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery



More information about the uClibc mailing list