On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:16 AM Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > On 11/20/20 6:13 PM, H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 6:12 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > >> * H. J. Lu: > >> > >>> Can we reach a consensus for _GNU_SOURCE vs _SC_SIGSTKSZ_SOURCE? > >>> > >>> How about we make _GNU_SOURCE to enable _SC_SIGSTKSZ_SOURCE and > >>> check _SC_SIGSTKSZ_SOURCE != 0? If _GNU_SOURCE triggers compilation > >>> error and source codes can't be changed, we can add > >>> -D_SC_SIGSTKSZ_SOURCE=0 to disable _SC_SIGSTKSZ_SOURCE. > >> > >> I think the source code compatibility is much more obscure than the > >> other things we broke quite recently, even without deprecation. Why > >> do we add the complexity in this case? I feel it is disproportional. > > > > Here is the patch with _GNU_SOURCE. Any comments? > > (1) New version of patch. > > This patch no longer compiles due to __cpuid_count errors. > > Could you please update this and post a v9? Fixed. > This is ABI addition for the constants so I want to make sure I review > something that works and is final from your end. > > (2) Kernel definition of constant for AT_MINSIGSTKSZ? > > We don't have a released kernel for x86 with this constant defined? > > The kernel patch was only just updated 5 days ago: > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-January/121671.html > > Doesn't this mean this patch is inappropriate for glibc 2.33? The new glibc works with the older kernels. In many cases, we use emulation for the older kernels. This patch only uses the existing kernel interface. The kernel patch you referred doesn't add any new interface. It simply uses the existing AT_MINSIGSTKSZ for x86. My patch includes an emulation for the older kernels. I think my patch is appropriate for glibc 2.33. Here is the updated patc. Thanks. -- H.J.