Re: [Gc] status of libatomic_ops
ivmai at mail.ru
Fri Jul 24 10:25:32 PDT 2009
"Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com> wrote:
> That's still the plan.
> However the intent is to have the libatomic_ops subdirectory in the bdwgc distribution separately buildable, and to have the GC distribution continue to build against a separate libatomic_ops if available. Thus hopefully the impact on distributions should be minimal.
> I really only did this because it simplified the source tree maintenance issues for me.
BTW, the name "libatomic_ops-1.2" in the CVS is somewhat misleading - it's not v1.2 already. Should the ver suffix be stripped in CVS (fixing the scripts)?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gc-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com
> > [mailto:gc-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com] On Behalf Of Dan HorАk
> > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:46 AM
> > To: GC Mailing List
> > Subject: [Gc] status of libatomic_ops
> > Hi all,
> > I would like to ask about the status of libatomic_ops. The
> > original home page
> > (https://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/) talks
> > about the intention to merge libatomic_ops with the bdwgc
> > library and doing only releases of bdwgc. So I would like to
> > know if the plan is still valid, my motivation are the
> > packaging issues it can cause in Linux distributions, because
> > they are now carrying libatomic_ops as a standalone package.
> > Thanks
> > Dan Horak
> > --
> > Fedora and Red Hat package maintainer
> > Fedora/s390x developer
More information about the Gc