Hi Leonid, Leonid Lisovskiy wrote,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb wbx@uclibc-ng.org wrote:
lowlevellock.c for arm differs from the generic lowlevellock.c only in insignificant ways, so can be removed. Follow glibc commit 6d96f5e4c0
Thanks, applied and pushed, Waldemar
I suggest to try to repeat the same action for other platforms using local lowlevellock.c copy. Starting from xtensa, since it don't use it at all(no reference to lowlevellock.c in Makefile.in), then - arc, metag, sparc.
But, unfortunately, I can't make the tests on these platforms myself. Waldemar, could you help with testing?
If you provide one patch for each architecture I can test them and if no regression happens I can commit them. Do you think our testsuite covers the included functionality in lowlevellock.c enough, so that no failure count changes, mean the generic code is fine?
best regards Waldemar