Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:06:39 -0800, Bryan Kadzban
>> <br...@kadzban.is-a-geek.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if that's the best setup; we'll have to make sure at each
>>> glibc release (until the bug is fixed) that no new private-futex tests
>>> are added. (That the sed is still equivalent to the patch.) It'd be
>>> nice if the sed could take into account the context of each line, but I
>>> believe that's rather difficult with sed.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have a preference?
>> Given the relative complexity of Andrew's sed expression, and your concerns
>> above,
>> I'd rather we go with the patch.
>
> Here are more specific, but a little clearer seds:
>
> sed -i '213 s/PRIVATE_FUTEX/FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME/' \
> nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.S
>
> sed -i '195,210 s/PRIVATE_FUTEX/FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME/'
> nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.S
>
> or
>
> sed -i '195,213 s/PRIVATE_FUTEX/FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME/' \
> nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/pthread_rwlock_timed{rd,wr}lock.S
>
> Actually, using one of these provides an educational example of how to
> specify an address range for a sed.Yeah, that extra educational bit helps > The above would need to be checked for any new release, but we need to > do that anyway for a patch and checking/changing these seds would be easier. Hmm, good point. OK, sed works for me. :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
