On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:56:15PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > At 12:22 PM -0800 3/24/04, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > > >> > > > > Uh, what about basic functionalty on Sparc64 and Alpha? > > > > > >who cares? > > > > I want the platform to be taken seriously. It is going to be a > > major challenge to the FreeBSD project to have multiple "tier 1" > > platforms, and it isn't good to hear a cavalier "Who Cares?" so > > early in handling that challenge. > > > > I'm not so sure that Julian was being cavalier. After watching > Julian, Dan, and David repeatedly ask for a sparc64 (and alpha) > person to help implement KSE, I suspect Julian was really asking > "Who cares enough about sparc64 to help implement the missing pieces > to get TLS moving forward?" > > From where I sit on the side lines, this looks like a catch-22. David > doesn't want to spend the time and effort to upgrade binutils without > the commitment of implementing TLS on all tier-1 platforms. Julian > and Dan don't want to make that commitment to all platforms until they > had the opportunity to implement it on at least i386, which can't be > done with a new toolchain. We've said this at other times, but TLS support is already partially designed in to libpthread (for all archs). We can (and will) implement it for them regardless of whether the library functions perfectly for those platforms. Both sparc64 and alpha seem to work OK when libpthread is built in 1:1 mode, so I suspect the real problem is resuming the thread contexts in userland and/or passing out the context in the expected format from the kernel. -- Dan EischenReceived on Wed Mar 24 2004 - 21:22:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:48 UTC