From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 20218 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2020 15:39:50 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 25 Jun 2020 15:39:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 9447 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jun 2020 15:39:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 9426 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2020 15:39:48 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 11:39:36 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20200625153936.GP6430@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20200624204243.GL6430@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200625081504.GE2048759@port70.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200625081504.GE2048759@port70.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] Release prep for 1.2.1, and afterwards On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:15:04AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Rich Felker [2020-06-24 16:42:44 -0400]: > > > I'm about to do last work of merging mallocng, followed soon by > > release. Is there anything in the way of overlooked bug reports or > > patches that should still be addressed in this release cycle? > > > > Things I'm aware of: > > > > - "Proposal to match behaviour of gethostbyname to glibc". Latest > > patch is probably ok, but could be deferred to after release. > > > > - nsz's new sqrt{,f,l}. I'm hesitant to do all three right away > > without time to test, but replacing sqrtl.c could be appropriate > > since the current one is badly broken on archs with ld wider than > > double. However it would need to accept ld80 in order not to be > > build-breaking on m68k, or m68k would need an alternative. > > that's still under work Won't it work just to make it decode/encode the ldshape, and otherwise use exactly the same code? Or are there double-rounding issues if the quad code is used with ld80? > but it would be nice if we could get the aarch64 > memcpy patch in (the c implementation is really > slow and i've seen ppl compare aarch64 vs x86 > server performance with some benchmark on alpine..) OK, I'll look again. Rich