X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3F9A56FD.C130CAB1@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:57:01 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Stuff for DJGPP 2.05
References: <200310242339 DOT h9ONdrLo009930 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:
> 
> According to Richard Dawe:
> > Here's what won't be in DJGPP 2.04, but could be in 2.05:
> >
> > * nmalloc
> 
> Could somebody refresh my memory on what is the problem with the
> current CBFalconer version, please. This one I think we should try to
> integrate.
> 
> (Actually I'm pretty discouraged that it hasn't been included. As I saw
> it, it just slipped in. Yes, that was without regard to previous
> commited improved interface with regard to malloc debugging, so I
> understand that there might be problems.)

When I started integrating nmalloc, it was my full intention that it would go
in after a brief review of the patch.

Unfortunately I found that some test programs crashed. The test for memalign,
if memory serves. Oh, I don't seem to have mentioned that in my mail about
integration: "nmalloc integration, WIP [PATCH]". Sorry!

Until it's more stable, I don't think it can go in. Hopefully that's just a
case of someone sitting down and debugging it.

> > * C99 maths functions
> 
> Can't we just add the ones that are ready? It won't be prefect but
> perhaps better that nothing?

See my reply to Eli.

> > I'm sorry. I just don't have time to try to integrate these. Thanks for
> > the work done. Hopefully someone will pick up the work and try to
> > integrate them. (Any volunteers?)
> >
> > * Full C99 compliance
> > * Better POSIX compliance
> 
> Yeah, sure! Shouldn't this (request for help) go to djgpp instead of
> djggp-workers? (I'm willing to make an announcement and to try to
> herd/contain the volunteers for a couple of months. (I don't forsee an
> huge interest.)

If you'd like to manage the C99 maths, please do.

> I'm not promising anything. But I should have some time during
> Christmas. What do you want me to focus on? (Personally FAQ and
> malloc() I think.)

C99 maths too, if you have time? You've done some work on that, so I think
you'd be a good person to do that.

> Or I might get a compulsory coding <whatever> (something else, not
> DJGPP i. e.), so no promises.
> 
> Did I mention that I won't promise anything? Even if we decide to push
> some DJGPP release into 2004?
[snip]
> PS. I might not even be connected between 24/12 to ~13/01. (Did I
> mention that I won't promise anything?)
> DS.

Yeah, I think you mentioned that you weren't promising anything. Not sure
when, though. ;)

I think we should do a 2.04 beta, then full release at the end of this year,
if possible. There's already a lot of stuff in it. I'm not convinced it will
get tested thoroughly until people upgrade to using 100% time. (I'm not even
using DJGPP 2.04 100% of the time.)

My concern is that unless we get 2.04 out soon, it may never go out.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

"You can't evaluate a man by logic alone." -- McCoy, "I, Mudd", Star Trek