From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id DDhoKb/5h2C/AwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:47:11 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9AEF31F11C; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:47:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65A51E01F for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A133989C8D; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:47:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 40A133989C8D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1619524030; bh=64kmxFaZRJgeh0rsva6EL8c4e3/h+5/T03YImPv9NFw=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=MYkXY1U2CIc5grwLOUS+4xxkXn9WZYG1/lsq2DBqWX/CET+IiyJTn85eKBr8JxqNe OPqCweKHwvS73g8OlgKPW50MW0VJNtrbjvLRBRmXpcew51kZ/B3+RD/hXlvPDi5F9U e4pXsW9J8lyicFZt+dL5fHoo8WhVJXgkDcyeiJ90= Received: from mail-ua1-x931.google.com (mail-ua1-x931.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::931]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BA353833026; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:47:07 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9BA353833026 Received: by mail-ua1-x931.google.com with SMTP id i5so1926668uap.5; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=64kmxFaZRJgeh0rsva6EL8c4e3/h+5/T03YImPv9NFw=; b=JGuV5suszOgxn5LQRk2ilimY9ZlQBncBPQaZ7ZSMGFhi+PyDEcNMFgMe+PDaguZrN7 5hlsh+piMBgF6BH3hbMmz99KE1WIFCD3xHk+BesiKsNPy6ETW9Gr4qmXczaoxaiW/RLS B3txvVbLHgFjpGwFog+nYcz5aqt719RH+Z9+bGR3prftFoBMIVP3+PusOy+jdqeNoPK1 TtRJ1mPD21HJKFcpfbEX+5euhYdqv9X6uKMoh/wv+7w1GcHcMG3d7GE8bgYdb3eaqUUD V/W55b+KRRPt3haq45o5c8zAfsjc40R9AmSr7jLnUc1gxfYu+jPAnvvcjTR+eNI6a2cB oZOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sgzvCoxtpWz4OFcrmwy0g+NzUO2lDjhYhS/dqp/xjUU3emO7s 69wGdAi+xo123dIMLg5YYICPUgtX3zeQQysb224= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwFXVRY+oIB1CMaeeHUFClJc2w0oKJbjE9BGZliLwri1Cr9gW+edBnesQI+T8kIflWJex0EGyZYtRDOUEt881o= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:12a:: with SMTP id 39mr16405206uak.19.1619524027276; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87czuum5yb.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87pmyq4k4k.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87pmyq4k4k.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:46:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nptl_db: Support different libpthread/ld.so load orders (bug 27744) To: Florian Weimer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Emil Velikov via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Emil Velikov Cc: Pedro Alves , Emil Velikov via Libc-alpha , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Hi Florian, On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 11:57, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Are there any plans for glibc 2.33.1 or shall I ask the Arch Linux > > maintainers to include this in the package? > > I'm going to backport it to the release branch, but we probably won't > make an actual 2.33.1 release from it. So it depends on what Arch Linux > does with the release branch. > I can see the patch landed in master \o/ but it's missing in the 2.33 branch. Did it slip through the cracks or you're simply EBUSY with the nptl/c11 pthread to libc transition? Thanks Emil