Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:00:11 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Good news: KSE on ia64 is starting to work Message-ID: <20030805210011.GB879@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308051639180.6128-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <20030805203213.GA879@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308051639180.6128-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 04:43:00PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > In struct ia64_tp we define tp_tls as an array of char. If we
> > define it as an array of long double we automaticly have 16-byte
> > alignment of the static TLS, struct ia64_tp, struct tcb and
> > struct kcb. Allocating the TCB will then automaticly ensure that
> > the static TLS is properly aligned. I'm currently testing with
> > the following (re)definition of struct ia64_tp:
> >
> > struct ia64_tp {
> > struct tdv *tp_tdv; /* dynamic TLS */
> > struct tcb *tp_self;
> > long double tp_tls[0]; /* static TLS */
> > };
>
> Sure; that was merely a placeholder so one (you) could replace
> it with whatever is needed. I assume this (static TLS) will
> have some predetermined size...
It's a runtime constant yes. We'll know the size of the static TLS
when we initialize libkse/libpthread and TLS support has been added.
I expect that kcb_faketcb doesn't need any TLS, because it's not
used for running user code, just an internal "doohicky", right?
BTW: Feel free to commit your patch at your earliest convenience
(with or without the change described above). I see a slight
regression after applying the patch, but much rather see it
committed than having to work with a large patch...
--
Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030805210011.GB879>