Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:29:05 -0700 From: LI Xin <delphij@delphij.net> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, d@delphij.net, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/locale utf8.c Message-ID: <472223E1.4070902@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <1193414454.7390.20.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <200710150951.l9F9pUm7026506@repoman.freebsd.org> <1193347863.93167.11.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <20071026145347.GA92529@dragon.NUXI.org> <200710261141.51639.jhb@freebsd.org> <1193414454.7390.20.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigD25977DEAF5E7ECF217A075B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ken Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:41 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> On Friday 26 October 2007 10:53:47 am David O'Brien wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: >>>> What we need to try and avoid unless *absolutely* *necessary* is the= [...] >>>> using a 6.3-REL base for the builds >>> This is news to me. >>> I've never heard that we're that concerned with forward compatability= >>> even on a RELENG branch. We do not break the ABI for backwards >>> compatability - in that everything (including kernel modules) that ra= n on >>> 6.2 must run on 6.3. >> Agreed. The solution to the shared /usr/local problem is to use the o= ldest=20 >> version for /usr/local. That has always been the case. Forwards=20 >> compatiblity (what you are asking for) is significantly harder to guar= antee=20 >> since accurately predicting the future isn't much a science. >> >=20 > Yeah, sorry. I guess I've been a bit grumpy the past couple days and > over-stated the "*absolutely* *necessary*" part above. It should have > read "*necessary*", not "*absolutely* *necessary*". >=20 > I'd just like us to question if it's necessary here. Is there a good > enough way to do this without causing the breakage? I sorta liked > Warren's question. Does this stuff need to be inlined and if not would= > that solution avoid the breakage? Apart from removing the inline stuff in ctype.h it seems to be no way to avoid the ABI breakage without problem or other troubles. The inlined functions are usually used in a loop which may have some impact to performance, I think we need to do some actual benchmark before concluding anything, but no, I'm not inclined for that approach yet. Cheers, --=20 Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! --------------enigD25977DEAF5E7ECF217A075B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHIiPiOfuToMruuMARCr3oAJ4tvd0m/VBg+poJuGIpeilvgQEYXQCgiNHz HmERLYvt3mo/oEW/YJGFQWU= =33d7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigD25977DEAF5E7ECF217A075B--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?472223E1.4070902>