This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: About tls comment.

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 <> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 07:14:01PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >>>> OndÅej BÃlka <> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It dates back to 2002. This comment puzzles me, as we do tls
> >>>>> initialization just below or did I missed something? 
> >>>>
> >>>> See <>.
> >>>
> >>> 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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]