posix threading plans

[Joakim Tjernlund]

On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 17:20 +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 May 2007, Steven J. Hill wrote:
> >   
> >> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >>     
> >>> 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.
> >>>       
> >> Do whatever you guys want and I will deal with it.
> >>     
> >
> > this isnt exactly a helpful stance to take ...
> >
> > so what i'm hearing is:
> >  - mips/nptl only exists in branches/uClibc-nptl/
> >  - the uClibc-nptl branch is in an unrecoverable state compared to trunk
> >  - arm/nptl exists against trunk
> >  - sjhill's work and codesourcery's work have some design decisions that need 
> > to be reconciled
> >
> > Carmelo: what's the status of the SuperH stuff ?
> >   
> Hi Mike,
> here it's the SuperH (specifically sh4 core) status:
> - code base is uClibc-nptl branch: svn revision 17694 (Feb 2007)
>                                                     **** BUT ****
> - all patch I've already posted to the ML and committed to trunk (by 
> you, Jocke, and others) are included
>    into nptl port (some of them are sh4 specific, some other general)

For what it is worth, I prefer Carmelos changes to the _dl_find_hash()
function. 
I would like to see the common changes for NTPL integrated first.
Also, since this is THE feature for the next release, why not work in
trunk?

 Jocke