Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:42:17 -0700 From: Conrad Meyer <cem@FreeBSD.org> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org>, Kurt Lidl <lidl@pix.net>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r299090 - in head: etc/mtree include lib/libbluetooth sbin/hastd share/man/man3 sys/dev/xen/blkback sys/kern sys/net sys/sys tests/sys tests/sys/sys usr.sbin/bluetooth/hccontrol Message-ID: <CAG6CVpXAfbf_bONUh9nsonEUpT%2B14zMfp6saRZTmVAjHJB1isw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2iJPZS8YY6sLZVi4SsCPYJH6LVtu0Lgj5MWbsP73Jt8Tw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201605042234.u44MYBMX054443@repo.freebsd.org> <2368543.Vvp613SNcD@ralph.baldwin.cx> <684f4a82-f48c-b2bb-6a72-5c1dfea11a39@pix.net> <CAOtMX2iKmX9yOg5P5931E2JSRgS2QO4wRDuE8SmcvmR4JxO_Fw@mail.gmail.com> <8074ef26-cb70-2397-b71e-b897a1270d22@FreeBSD.org> <CAOtMX2iJPZS8YY6sLZVi4SsCPYJH6LVtu0Lgj5MWbsP73Jt8Tw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On 5/23/16 1:30 PM, Alan Somers wrote: >> > UPDATING is updated as of r300539. Any objection to merging this to >> > stable/10? >> >> If any port uses it then yes. Binaries are built from 10.1 and expected >> to work on 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, etc. > > > Most ports that use bitstring should work. The only ports that won't are > ports that either store bitstrings on disk or transmit them across a network > without an explicit serialization step. A few other weird cases would break > too, like building a port on 10.3, updating sys/bitstring.h, then rebuilding > some object files but not others. Is there any way to figure out what ports > might be using this header? OpenHub code search didn't turn up anything. It seems to me like this is exactly the sort of ABI breakage the stable/* branches promise not to make. On the other hand, it seems to me like the majority of the benefit of this patch could be gained without breaking ABI. (Optimistically iterate longs rather than bytes if the pointer's alignment is suitable.) Best, Conrad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG6CVpXAfbf_bONUh9nsonEUpT%2B14zMfp6saRZTmVAjHJB1isw>