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.netReceived 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