From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3765 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: About ready for 0.9.12 release Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:02:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20130728080231.GA28239@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374998565 24007 80.91.229.3 (28 Jul 2013 08:02:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:02:45 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3769-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Jul 28 10:02:48 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V3LwG-0000Uy-6G for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 10:02:48 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 11497 invoked by uid 550); 28 Jul 2013 08:02:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 11483 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2013 08:02:43 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3765 Archived-At: OK, so.... There are a couple remaining issues I'd hoped to address in 0.9.12 which I think I'm going to punt on. They are: - ARM memcpy optimization - Symlink direction for ld-musl/libc.so There are a few reasons aside from the simple fact that I'd like to release sooner rather than later. For memcpy, I'm more and more getting the feeling that this is something we should commit shortly AFTER a release rather than before. I know Andre would like to experiment with getting a version written that rivals the proposed asm but with all the higher-level logic in C, but this is going to require some testing before we can make a release with it, and I'm still worried it might prove impossible to get both comparable performance and comparable size -- but I very much do want to see! For the symlink issue, my feeling is that we have a larger open issue than just the direction: whether there should be any reflection of versions in any filenames, what concrete benefits different people want to get out of a possible change, etc. Recently Timo Teräs (fabled) has brought up the needs of distributions/package management systems for tracking the version of libc needed, but these discussions do not seem to have reached a conclusion yet, and I think it's still unclear what, if any, changes might be beneficial here. The original versioning and symlink direction issue was raised by Isaac Dunham. What I don't want to do is go making changes now only to find it would really have been better to do a different change or not change anything at all, so after the release I'd like to resume the discussion with a focus on identifying what the real needs to be met are. Other than those, are there any other things (in the way of _small_ details) anyone wants me to consider for 0.9.12? Rich