Re: HEADS UP! KSE needs more attention

From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel_at_xcllnt.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:10:12 -0700
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 10:42:13PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote:
> On Monday 07 June 2004 20:42, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 05:22:35PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote:
> > > > > Actually its a bit better than that. It works for most use
> > > > > cases right now on i386 but would get confused on dlclose. I'll
> > > > > fix that before I move it into current.
> > > >
> > > > Does it work on static bound executables?
> > >
> > > Which one is static bound
> >
> > The executable; you know, no rtld. What I call complete executable to
> > distinguish it from static TLS on my page. Does static TLS work?
> >
> > See also: http://wiki.daemon.li/index.pl?ThreadLocalStorage
> 
> No, this one is not yet supported. I think I can deal with this inside 
> libc with some small support from the kernel (probably just to provide 
> details of the TLS segment size etc.)

Ok, thanks. BTW, I was thinking along the same lines, although it
looks from your description that I probably wanted to put more of
the meat in the kernel to avoid making the startup code complex
and possibly pessimizing non-TLS processes. 

Anyway: From my PoV, static TLS is not critical enough to force it
in 5.3, but it is important enough to have soon after that.

FYI,

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel_at_xcllnt.net
Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 21:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:56 UTC