From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baldric (baldric.uwo.ca [129.100.10.225]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADB148AC for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:44:24 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:40:45 -0400 From: Carlos O'Donell To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: libc-alpha , parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Message-ID: <20031015054045.GE22495@systemhalted> References: <20031010204444.GF6454@systemhalted> <3F8CD774.4040400@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3F8CD774.4040400@redhat.com> Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: [PATCH] linuxthreads for hppa (1/3) Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:13:24PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > I think I've asked this before: > > > Use __LT_INITIALIZER_NOT_ZERO instead of __LT_SPINLOCK_INIT. > > Why? No unnecessary changes. __LT_SPINLOCK_INIT is the value of the structure and used for initialization e.g. { 1, 1, 1, 1 }. It can no longer be used in a macro evaluation like "#if __LT_SPINLOCK_INIT". Instead the other macros was added. > No unnecessary changes. Leave the code you're not using alone. > And again. I made the mistake of adding my STACK_GROWS_UP fixes to this patch set. If you note I have submitted a "Round 2" set of patches that remove these changes. Cheeers, Carlos.