RFC: TLS improvements for IA32 and AMD64/EM64T
Mon Oct 9 19:57:00 GMT 2006
> Here's an updated patch the should address all of your concerns. The
> proposed ABI changes haven't changed at all for almost a year, and in
> the mean time we've ported it to one more platform (ARM), so I believe
> this is rock solid now.
It looks good and the patch is pretty informative. However, there are some statements that may not be as clear as they could be, so I was thinking if the changes to your patch in attach seem reasonable.
Would you consider adding the calculations for the new relocations in order to improve their clarity? The original paper on TLS goes on about them a bit, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the psABI document more stand-alone.
I remember some examples in your paper at the GCC Summit and adding them to section 3.5 would be swell too.
> Let me know what you think about the proposed changes. They document
> what's implemented in GNU binutils, GCC and the pending patches I have
> for glibc, that I'm retesting after updating them to a current tree.
>From your paper at the GCC Summit it's quite clear that such additions to the psABI would be a fine idea. Perhaps HJ would like to consider the corresponding additions for the i386 psABI extension.
So, there's no question about the technical part of your proposal. But, as you can infer from my comments above, I'd like to improve the clarity of the psABI so that one wouldn't have to go to specific implementations to figure out the details. What do you think?
Evandro Menezes AMD Austin, TX
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2048 bytes
More information about the Binutils