Re: [PATCH v2] um: Avoid longjmp/setjmp symbol clashes with libpthread.a

Am 01.06.2017 um 22:40 schrieb Florian Fainelli:
>>> Sure, but that seems orthogonal? In the absence of an answer from Eli,
>>> either you could take my patch or just send reverts of Eli's two
>>> commits, whichever you prefer.
>>
>> Or you and Thomas could investigate. :-)
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what do you want me to investigate, my host
> machine is old (2.6.32) and does not support PTRACE_GETREGSET or
> friends, nor does it have _xstate, so with that, we either don't use
> those period, which would be a revert, or we just conditionally build
> support for that (my patch) and everyone is happy.

This is exactly why we have this mess right now. Everybody is just focusing
on his own stuff.

> I don't know what the issue Thomas is having (he is now CC'd) and I
> still don't understand why you insist on conflating the symbol clash
> while statically linking with support for newer x86 FPU stuff...

The said commits introduced issues, you face some, Thomas is facing some.
I want them to get fixed or at least understood before we apply new patches.

Thanks,
//richard