On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 03:52 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 13:03, rajmohan r via lists.openembedded.org > wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 07:34 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: >> >> Thanks. This patch is invasive and adds to glibc maintenance burden. >> Which begs the question: do we need the recipe at all? Is there a >> particular reason you started looking into this issue? >> >> When we moved from yocto kirkstone branch to scarthgap branch, we found >> that >> compilation for this module taking longer time. hence started looking >> which stage >> in this module takes time. Found that it is in do_check() stage. >> >> >> It is by now well established that glibc itself works as it should, >> that all affected 32 bit targets are configured to use 64 bit time_t, >> and that any lingering y2038 issues are in components other than the c >> library, and usually come from C programming mistakes (e.g. storing >> timestamps in long). Maybe we can simply remove the recipe? >> >> This recipe gives only two test cases in the packages to test. below are >> the >> test cases seen for this package >> io/ftwtest >> io/ftwtest-time64 > > Right. I propose that this recipe be altogether removed (with the > rationale I provided above which you can add to the commit message). > Can you send a patch for that? Patch is send here https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/215381 please review. Thanks for reviewing. > > Alex