Bug#325600: closed by Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> (Closing bugs fixed in unreleased version 2.4-1 of the glibc)

[Tom Evans <tom@23palmer.net>]

The patch that you didn't know existed was included with the bug report.

I am trying the patch that Aurelien suggested - it does look like a 
better solution - I was going to try to decode the inline assembler in 
that area this weekend to see if there was a mistake.

There have been offers on the debian-alpha list for Alpha machine 
donations - some of them decent enough machines.

What needs to happen for a machine to be useful for developers?

...tom

Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:26:09AM +0200, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>   
> > > Tom Evans a écrit :
> > >       
> > > > When will this version be moved into stable/Etch?
> > > >         
> > > This version (or a later one) will move to stable for Lenny, but will
> > > never move to Etch, as it is now a released version.
> > >       
> > Somewhere in the past there was a very simple patch (look for "not_cancel")
> > that worked for the 2.3 release of the glibc (Tom wrote that):
> >
> > "If I simply change (in linuxthreads/sysdep/unix/sysv/linux/not-cancel.h) 
> > from:
> >
> > # define waitpid_not_cancel(pid, stat_loc, options) \
> >   INLINE_SYSCALL (osf_wait4, 4, pid, stat_loc, options, NULL)
> >
> > to:
> >
> > # define waitpid_not_cancel(pid, stat_loc, options) \
> >   wait4( pid, stat_loc, options, NULL )
> >
> > all is well - I understand the performance benefits of the inlining,
> > but since x86 is NPTL anyway, perhaps this is an okay solution?
> >
> > I'm guessing that there is an Alpha-related optimizer bug perhaps?
> > Or that the inline_syscall4 in sysdep/unix/alpha/sysdep.h is somehow
> > broken?"
> >     
>
>
>   
> > Why was this patch never included for stable?
> >     
>   Because we weren't aware it existed ? Because no alpha machine is
> available to developers for a year now ?
>
>   You know we're not semi gods with an echelon trigger on any glibc
> patch that floats in the intarweb.
>
>   But if the patch is _indeed_ that simple, I truly believe we could
> make it into etch-r1.
>
>