From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 18 21:41:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA02573 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 18 May 1997 21:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pluto.plutotech.com (root@pluto100.plutotech.com [206.168.67.137]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA02568; Sun, 18 May 1997 21:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from narnia.plutotech.com (narnia.plutotech.com [206.168.67.130]) by pluto.plutotech.com (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id WAA26421; Sun, 18 May 1997 22:41:05 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199705190441.WAA26421@pluto.plutotech.com> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG cc: davem@caip.rutgers.edu (David S. Miller), terry@lambert.org, deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jb@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au Subject: Re: GNAT-pthreads integration bugs/questions In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 18 May 1997 22:30:02 CDT." <199705190330.WAA10372@dyson.iquest.net> Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 23:39:21 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> > Put it at the bottom on the threads stack... >> >> There is no threads stack in an rfork. >> >> A thread lacks a stack with rfork(), is this what you are >> saying? How in the world does this work? >> >Why does rfork need to be concerned with a stack? It can >be handled in userland. > >John It sounds to me like using the base of the stack would be an excelent and cheap way to implement the equivelent of NT's "thread local storage". You'd need toolchain support at the very least with the program image specifying the amount of stack space to "reserve". -- Justin T. Gibbs =========================================== FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations ===========================================