3 Jun
2016
3 Jun
'16
3:28 p.m.
Hi Leonid,
Leonid Lisovskiy wrote,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb
<wbx(a)uclibc-ng.org> wrote:
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
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