Re: Status of revivesa

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:15:23PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> > Andrew will have to confirm, but the comments say that the new order is
> > mandatory for sysenter.  That said, AFAIK, we don't use sysenter by
> > default.  The only way to use it is to compile libc with -DI686_LIBC, so
> > we have the option of providing the compatibility as long as the user
> > accepts not to use sysenter.
> 
> My "perfect world" solution would be to make the sysenter-compatible 
> reshuffling an option and make COMPAT_30_PTHREAD or some such another 
> option, and make the two incompatible. That way an admin can clearly 
> select which way to go. If either were a default, I'd make the sysenter 
> one default. :-)

I'd like to see a COMPAT_30_PTHREAD.

> 
> The upshot, though, is that this means that revivesa didn't break this. So 
> does anyone else have any issues that should be examined before a merge? 
> The only one I see is to verify that I'm not really seeing a crash of 
> named on boot.

I support getting it merged now.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--