Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNU is Not Unix Open Source Programming News

GNU C Library 2.17 Announced, Includes Support For 64-bit ARM 68

Posted by timothy
from the well-armed-society dept.
hypnosec writes "A new version of GNU C Library (glibc) has been released and with this new version comes support for the upcoming 64-bit ARM architecture a.k.a. AArch64. Version 2.17 of glibc not only includes support for ARM, it also comes with better support for cross-compilation and testing; optimized versions of memcpy, memset, and memcmp for System z10 and zEnterprise z196; and optimized version of string functions, on top of some quite a few other performance improvements, states the mailing list release announcement. Glibc v 2.17 can be used with a minimum Linux kernel version 2.6.16."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GNU C Library 2.17 Announced, Includes Support For 64-bit ARM

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I read the mailing list post and they do mention the minimum Linux kernel version needed to work with this C library, but it doesn't say why. I'm curious as to what new features they are using that are not in early 2.6.x kernels. For that matter I'm curious as to whether Hurd works with this C library. The Hurd project isn't mentioned anywhere in the mailing list post.

    • by kthreadd (1558445) on Thursday December 27, 2012 @05:36PM (#42406585)

      I read the mailing list post and they do mention the minimum Linux kernel version needed to work with this C library, but it doesn't say why. I'm curious as to what new features they are using that are not in early 2.6.x kernels. For that matter I'm curious as to whether Hurd works with this C library.

      Because it relies on the kernel API compatible with 2.6.16 and later.

      The Hurd project isn't mentioned anywhere in the mailing list post.

      It's my understanding that the Hurd project uses a customized version of glibc.

      • by debiansid (881350)

        The Hurd project isn't mentioned anywhere in the mailing list post.

        It's my understanding that the Hurd project uses a customized version of glibc.

        That should be read as: "If you're compiling on Linux, we're assuming that you have 2.6.16 or later". This is because we assume presence of some features in some of the Linux-specific code. Hurd is not mentioned anywhere because there weren't any noteworthy changes to hurd-specific requirements.

    • by broken_chaos (1188549) on Thursday December 27, 2012 @05:43PM (#42406635)
      Best guess I have is that they removed their implementations of the *at syscalls added in 2.6.16 (since almost no one is using that old a kernel anyway and presumably it made the maintenance easier), and will always directly make use of the kernel versions of those. There were a few other syscalls added in 2.6.16, so it might be related to one of those instead (but the *at ones look most likely to me).
  • is not gonna be happy

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm not sure the man has ever been happy. I'm pretty sure he'd grit his teeth through an orgasm, if he ever had one. I wager he would reproduce in a laboratory though.

      • by KiloByte (825081)

        I wager he would reproduce in a laboratory though.

        Fortunately the tech isn't ready yet. And we can hope, perhaps something bad could happen to Lennart Poettering as well?

  • eglibc (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Microlith (54737) on Thursday December 27, 2012 @06:04PM (#42406777)

    Looks like the eglibc fork was a good thing for the project. Rather than having one maintainer that resists and fights an architecture for personal reasons, the project is now being proactive in integrating a new ARM architecture.

    Now if we could only get away from having so many Android-only bionic-targeting blobs.

  • by Alwin Henseler (640539) on Thursday December 27, 2012 @06:11PM (#42406841) Homepage

    From the release announcement:

    * Port to ARM AArch64 contributed by Linaro.

    From that organization [linaro.org]'s website:

    "it wants to provide the best software foundations to everyone, and to reduce non-differentiating and costly low level fragmentation."

    "Linaro was established in June 2010 by founding members ARM, Freescale, IBM, Samsung, ST-Ericsson and Texas instruments (TI). Members provide engineering resources and funding. Linaro's goals are to deliver value to its members through enabling their engineering teams to focus on differentiation and product delivery, and to reduce time to market for OEM/ODMs delivering open source based products using ARM technology."

    (member list quite a bit longer than above names)

    In other words: many commercial enterprises, that are in it for the money and fighting each other in the marketplace, but working together to improve something that's out there in the open, free for all to use. So that what's common to all, is the best it can be, and each vendor can focus its resources on what makes their product different from the rest of the pack.

    Sigh - how much better life could be if that principle were applied more often...

    • by Kjella (173770)

      In other words: many commercial enterprises, that are in it for the money and fighting each other in the marketplace, but working together to improve something that's out there in the open, free for all to use. So that what's common to all, is the best it can be, and each vendor can focus its resources on what makes their product different from the rest of the pack. Sigh - how much better life could be if that principle were applied more often...

      Before you go bubbling over with the nobility of it all, I'd say its a pretty ruthless business decision based on "near" and "far" competition. All the ARM companies are competing between themselves, but they also know ARM as a whole is competing with Intel and x86 so they're allies in fighting the bigger enemy. The same way RHEL and SLES and Ubuntu LTS and whatnot are competing for server support, but they're also all fighting Microsoft in the grander OS market. It happens very often in business that your

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I wish I had a 64-bit arm.

  • Bleh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alistairk (2803493) on Thursday December 27, 2012 @06:43PM (#42407043)
    Oh man so I went multiarch on Debian for nothing
  • by Curupira (1899458) on Thursday December 27, 2012 @07:30PM (#42407369)
    I'm trying to undo an unfair mod I applied to an insightful post. Slashdot should let us (at least for one minute) undo a mistaken mod :(
    • Exactly. There could appear an "Undo" link next to the moderation pull-down list after moderation, which would be valid for, say, 5 minutes.
  • Did they add strlcpy and strlcat?

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...