This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: __getreent in libgloss
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: Stefan Wallentowitz <stefan dot wallentowitz at tum dot de>
- Cc: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:14:53 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: __getreent in libgloss
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5457880D dot 9040602 at tum dot de> <1165383758 dot 4082281 dot 1415051438222 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <5458B035 dot 2090100 at tum dot de>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stefan Wallentowitz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Jeff Johnston" <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 5:53:41 AM
> Subject: Re: __getreent in libgloss
> On 03.11.2014 22:50, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> >> By default newlib
> >> takes __getreent() and I can overwrite __getreent to my own function.
> >> Where should I do this? I set it in config.h (#define __getreent
> >> or1k_getreent), but then I also need to define the external function
> >> (extern struct _reent *or1k_getreent(void)), correct?
> > Actually, overriding is much easier. Newlib is designed to override shared
> > functions with ones
> > that are found in the libc/machine or libc/sys directories. In your case,
> > if
> > you have a getreent.c or getreent.S that is found in libc/machine/or1k (or
> > whatever you designate
> > your machine_dir in configure.host), it will override the object file built
> > in libc/reent.
> Ah, yes, I just found that this did not work properly as I forgot to run
> automake again after adding a the file to Makefile.am..
> > If you don't actually have multiple threads, you might as well just use the
> > default one found in libc/reent. There is a sample multithread version in
> > libc/sys/linux/linuxthreads/getreent.c which uses the thread specific
> > storage
> > to get the current reentrancy structure for the current thread.
> I am more looking into baremetal multicore support and found that it
> might be a good option to use re-entrancy on the different cores. Do you
> agree on this?
That makes sense if you are going to support multiple threads running on
> Thanks for your support.
> Best regards,