Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:53:29 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@ulyssis.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: WINE vs. FreeBSD Message-ID: <44C935D9.8040604@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200607272308.27425.tijl@ulyssis.org> References: <200607221914.15826.lofi@freebsd.org> <200607250358.21457.tijl@ulyssis.org> <200607271121.17313.jhb@freebsd.org> <200607272308.27425.tijl@ulyssis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tijl Coosemans wrote: >On Thursday 27 July 2006 17:21, John Baldwin wrote: > > >>On Monday 24 July 2006 21:58, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> >> >>>However, Wine/Windows uses %fs for TLS and it appears that the >>>FreeBSD kernel doesn't preserve it. It always ends up pointing to >>>GUDATA_SEL. >>> >>> >>The kernel should preserve %fs across syscalls, traps, and faults. >>Can you point to a specific case where %fs is not preserved? It >>sounds like %fs is never set to a value in Wine. >> >> > >Yes, it was a combination of compiler optimizations and an inline >assembly block missing __volatile__. > > > does this mean that wine will work from now on? i.e. is the fix being fed back into wine sources?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44C935D9.8040604>