This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RISC-V glibc port v2
- From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt dot com>
- To: joseph at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Andrew Waterman <andrew at sifive dot com>, Darius Rad <darius at bluespec dot com>, dj at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:45:36 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: RISC-V glibc port v2
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:11:02 PST (-0800), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
* Should we have padding in __pthread_rwlock_arch_t? I assume the padding on
other architectures is there for ABI reasons and shouldn't be necessary for
new ports, but the ports I usually rely on all have excatly the same padding
so I'm worried there's another reason for this.
The size was probably originally chosen to be the same as used by
Linuxthreads. Since then, there's been at least one rwlock rewrite that
increased the amount of space that's padding.
On the whole I'd say it's safest to have that padding on RISC-V as well,
in case there are any more rewrites in future, since it's possible a
rewrite could increase the amount of space used as well as decreasing it,
and so if one architecture makes the type smaller than others that could
complicate any such future change needing more space.
Sounds good. I'll add a comment
diff --git a/sysdeps/riscv/nptl/bits/pthreadtypes-arch.h b/sysdeps/riscv/nptl/bits/pthreadtypes-arch.h
index f15e024826ac..4fabc4a2cde2 100644
@@ -52,6 +52,10 @@
+/* There is a lot of padding in this structure. While it's not strictly
+ necessary on RISC-V, we're going to leave it in to be on the safe side in
+ case it's needed in the future. Most other architectures have the padding,
+ so this gives us the same extensibility as everyone else has. */
unsigned int __readers;