This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Failure to dlopen libgomp due to static TLS data
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:39:48 +1030
- Subject: Re: Failure to dlopen libgomp due to static TLS data
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <201502121519 dot t1CFJMAe018776 at d03av02 dot boulder dot ibm dot com> <20150212160959 dot GS23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20150212161145 dot GD1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOqk9quw-VQU_=+WwEaPuvdjtzbwdG3NQrA0EbJbwyZBnw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150212170724 dot GW23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20150212234211 dot GQ4274 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20150212235530 dot GA23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:55:30PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:12:11AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I posted support for TLSDESC on powerpc back in 2009 (search for
> > powerpc _tls_get_addr call optimization). The patch wasn't reviewed,
> > and I didn't push it because my benchmark tests didn't show a much of
> > a gain. Quite possibly I wasn't using the right benchmark.
> Were you measuring static-allocated TLSDESC vs non-TLSDESC GD model?
> That's the case where there should be a "big" difference, though I'm
> still somewhat skeptical of the benefits in real-world usage cases.
I can't remember, sorry, it was too long ago.
Australia Development Lab, IBM