Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:44:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org>, Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Porting libc_r from -current to -stable Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10208291541450.21019-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <3D6E7467.2E0C454C@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Kenneth Culver wrote: > > > I've volunteered to do this port, with the expectation that it's within my > > > ability. I'm just a bit over my head, but that's how I'll learn, right? > [ ... ] > > Just curious, but what does doing this port get you? > > In theory, it should mean that threaded code compiled for -stable > will then run on -current without modification, when someone > decides that -current is stable enough for the changeover. > > If the implementation of flockfile/ftrylockfile/funlockfile is > via a library exported symbol, then programs that are linked > shared should "just work", but it will take a lot of hackery > to implement these function in -stable without introducing a > -stable/-stable binary compatability problem, which is normally > deferred until later releases (there would be a libc version > number bump required, which isn't possible, because minor version > numbers aren't supported, and there's already a lot of -current > boxes out there). -stable already has flockfile and friends in both libc and libc_r. The only work in porting -current's libc_r to -stable in this case is to keep libc_r's uthread_file.c which implements them. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10208291541450.21019-100000>