Re: Current status: important changes since 0.9.11

[Harald Becker <ralda@gmx.de>]

Hi Rich!

19-07-2013 14:53 Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>:

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:39:23PM +0200, Harald Becker wrote:

> 1. We already have "optimized asm" for a few archs, and I
> didn't see a strong argument for removing it.

The strong argument is single point of failure and equal startup
on all plattforms. If you include the asm versions in main
stream, nobody will use/test the new version on those systems. As
soon as you decide to drop old code you stumble into the trouble,
if such exist. Why not doing a careful and documented break (new
startup) in next release. They should be compatible and tested
for the main lines, so most people will not encounter problems.
And those who catch trouble ... (see below)

> 2. There's a chance to mess up odd arch-specific requirements,
>    alignment, etc. in the new asm fragment unless it undergoes
> some careful review.

Sure. That's the reason why I would include the old asm startup
in the next release or the one there after, as (proposed)
unmaintained code. If one stumbles into a rare corner case, which
may be tracked down to the new startup files, it is possible to
grab the old startup ... but you probably get early response of
this, and may be able to fix new startup to handle things
properly. As long as you get response to startup code, hold old
asm versions in release for fallback usage. The relaese one
version with proposed removal of old startup code, then drop
it ... and you safe a lot of work on different places.

Or do it in this way:

Release one version with new old startup code as main stream and
new one as alternative. Requesting testing, proposing switchover.

If there is no response of startup code failures switch over to
new startup on next release, with fallback to old asm version.

This gives you an extra cycle/slot of testing, but rapid switch
over and saving work for the future.

--
Harald