On Fri., 7 Sep. 2018, 04:06 Rich Felker, <dalias@libc.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:19:14AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:02:14PM +0200, Patrick Oppenlander wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:14 AM Patrick Oppenlander
> > > <patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:35 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > I think there needs to be a ".hidden __syscall_ret" (by de facto
> musl
> > > > > convention, on the line before it's used) here. It *might* be ok
> > > > > having the reference omit .hidden as long as the definition is
> hidden
> > > > > at link-time (which it is), but I'm not convinced the tooling won't
> > > > > complain about a branch to a destination that's not known to be
> > > > > link-time constant displacement.
> > > >
> > > > If that's the case  i386, s390x, x86_64 and x32 may need attention in
> > > > vfork.s as they're doing it the same way.
> > > >
> > > > > If you have no other changes or comments I'm happy to just --amend
> > > > > that into the patch when I commit it.
> > > >
> > > > No problem with that at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess this one slipped through the cracks for 1.20.
> > >
> > > Any chance of you taking a look soon?
> >
> > Indeed! Sorry about that. I'm in the middle of a big shuffle of messy
> > stuff in the source tree right now, but ping me again soon if you
> > don't see action on it in the next couple days.
>
> I have it queued in my tree now, along with fixing .hidden for the
> other archs and the cleanup work I'm doing. Depending on how the rest
> of this goes there might still be some delay seeing it, but the risk
> of it being forgotten is basically zero now. :-)
>

Perfect, thanks!

I'm not in a hurry for it (away from dayjob for a month traveling) just
wanted to send a gentle reminder so that it wasn't forgotten.

Patrick