This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: About tls comment.
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 15:35:19 -0400
- Subject: Re: About tls comment.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131101164400 dot GA4917 at domone dot podge> <87sivgyopi dot fsf at igel dot home> <20131101221614 dot GK20515 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <87mwln5mii dot fsf at igel dot home> <20131102145827 dot GA10582 at domone dot podge> <52752C3F dot 9090904 at redhat dot com>
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 12:45:51PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 10:58 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 07:46:29AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Rich Felker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 07:14:01PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >>>> OndÅej BÃlka <email@example.com> writes:
> >>>>> It dates back to 2002. This comment puzzles me, as we do tls
> >>>>> initialization just below or did I missed something?
> >>>> See <http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc/history.git/commitdiff/19485a5>.
> >>> It's not immediately apparent to me how this answers the question. If
> >>> you know more and it's not too big a time-waster, could you comment a
> >>> bit more on it?
> >> You have to ask Uli on it.
> > From diff this looks like obsolete comment after code changed.
> > More specifically what is wrong with patch below?
> I don't know, but the undocumented interdependencies for TLS
> are large and complicated. It would take me quite a bit of
> review to figure it out.
> I also won't accept any TLS patches without a detailed description
> from the patch author about exactly what was wrong with the
> original code and why the code should be changed in the way
> that it is changed.
Exactly. I think this is something that should really be documented,
especially since it affects the ABI for other components (e.g. GCC
-fstack-protector) not just the dynamic linker or glibc.