On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 05:15:13PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg00791.html> still
> applies. Unify implementations instead of proliferating variants.
I think on it. I don't see simple way to unify it right now. And I
plan to take a vacation in next two weeks, so I'd like to share my
progress to community (mostly for kernel), as this series has some
LTP tests fixed, and this is important for us.
What you talk about sounds unclear to me. If you mean to unify with
one of existing ports, it looks unnecessary, as ilp32 will end up with
RISC-V anyway. If you mean to use RISC-V, it's not ready yet. I was
thinking that when they will finish, they simply switch this port to
their code. Am I too optimistic?
> Also, much of the formatting is way off the GNU Coding Standards (e.g.
> indentation that's not two-column, "{" not on a line by itself), and
> you're missing descriptions as first lines of many new files.
Is there glibc analogue for kernel scripts/checkpatch.pl? If yes,
please point me out, and I'll briefly fix all issues. If no please be
patient to whitespace rules violations. I completely understand the
importance of following the coding rules, but now I am little limited
in time and prefer to fix real bugs first, and then read that document
carefully and check all the mess I introduced.
Yury
