linux-kernel - Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803071557070.28840@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 7 Mar 2018 16:00:50 +0000
From:   Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <metcalf@...m.mit.edu>,
        Henrik Grindal Bakken <hgb@....uio.no>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Helmut Grohne <helmutg@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> Do you have any updates on this? A related question has come up
> for the kernel, as are in the process of removing a number of architectures,
> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/748074/119aaf0d62b3e6c1/ or
> see https://lwn.net/Articles/748074/ for a nice summary.

No-one has posted glibc test results for 2.27 or 2.26, despite the prior 
claims of interest in keeping the glibc port.  If the kernel port is 
removed, my assumption is that we should remove the glibc port at that 
point (not keep it around for possible use with older kernels).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@...esourcery.com