RE: (impl) glibc patches
> I see.
>
> Well is the LSB going to force distribution change? Do we
> want to run the
> risk of breaking existing code?
>
> This sounds like a policy decision.
Yeah.
There's a little more to it that I just deduced.
glibc tried to fix this a long time ago, the fix was
in 2.2.5 (went in June 2001), although it wasn't quite
correct. The 2.2.5 fix was to return "base + incr" which
would be invalid if "base + incr" was too big - didn't
account for bounds truncation. The extra LSB fix was
to return the result of getpriority instead, thus
making sure it returns what the niceness actually got
set to, instead of something that might be more than that.
I think that fix shouldn't be controversial but I don't
see it in the glibc cvs.
An extra "got it wrong" part was that apparently
this fix didn't propagate out to a Linux build,
whether that was intentional or not, I don't know.
That problem was corrected by the other bit of the
nice patch, which went into glibc's cvs tree on
March 2 of this year.
The policy decision is pending.
Mats
Reply to: