We talked about this a bit on our weekly call today.
Just to be sure: are you saying that George's patches are *functionally correct* for ARM5/6/7 (and broken for ARM 4), but it would be better to organize the code a bit better?
If that is correct, was ARM4 working before?
If ARM4 was working before, how important is it? I.e., would it be ok to accept George's stuff for 1.7.0, and then accept any improvements/reshuffle/etc. from you for 1.7.1?
On Jan 21, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Leif Lindholm <Leif.Lindholm_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi George,
> Any chance of r27882 being reverted?
> As I told the Fedora guys when that patch originally surfaced,
> I'm not overly fond of
> - copying source files around as part of the configure step
> - having separate source files for ARMv6 and ARMv7, when those differences
> should be easily separated through macros (and would be reusable for 32-bit
> Also, I might have mentioned that bit only on a separate thread on the Fedora list, but the ARMv4 support isn't actually correct (the ASM uses ARMv5-only operations).
> My alternate solution, the basic idea of which I posted over there  was to separate ARMv5 and earlier from ARM. Effectively separating the atomics implementation at the boundary where The ARM architecture got load-linked/store-conditional, rather than having a separate source file for every architecture version.
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2012-November/004434.html
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2012-November/004460.html
> Best Regards,
> -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
> devel mailing list
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/