On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Doug Barton wrote: > On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 07:45:08PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > > > > It's incredibly disappointing to me that after all this time this is > > > still an issue. Sitting in an ivory tower and proclaiming how the world > > > _ought_ to be isn't really a useful approach to software design. > > > > It's incredibly insulting to me that you have the audacity to > > denigrate the work of the KSE developers. > > Getting insulted on other people's behalf is rarely a useful exercise. > And regardless of how hard someone has worked on something, two things > are true of every contribution to the project (including mine). Look, we are using %gs for LDT allocation because we need some way to get per-KSE (or per thread for libthr) local storage and to get at the current KSE (thread). And, in fact it was the NVidia folks that pointed us at this spec: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tls.pdf That is an ABI spec that Linux, Solaris, and others are now following. It mandates how %gs is supposed to be used for TLS. We are trying to adhere to this spec and the goal is to be compliant with it by 5.3. When we support the TLS spec, the NVidia folks can rebuild their drivers/libraries without LDT allocations under FreeBSD. This is what they (NVidia) want. I suggest you go read this thread before complaining too much: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=189526+0+archive/2003/freebsd-threads/20030615.freebsd-threads -- Dan EischenReceived on Sat Feb 07 2004 - 20:08:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:42 UTC