From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 4 00:41:46 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65252106564A for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:41:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gonzo@hq.bluezbox.com) Received: from hq.bluezbox.com (hq.bluezbox.com [70.38.37.145]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BE88FC17 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by hq.bluezbox.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.73 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SFEHx-0009fy-9l; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:41:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4F7B98C0.6090209@bluezbox.com> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:41:36 -0700 From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Evans References: <2FF97057-905D-4F02-9138-75680ABC6202@canonware.com> <4F79F020.9070504@freebsd.org> <3C11DB18-1C43-446E-A0BC-FC15C6126819@canonware.com> <4F7A170E.8020209@bluezbox.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: gonzo@hq.bluezbox.com X-Spam-Level: ---- X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "hq.bluezbox.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see The administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 02/04/2012 2:23 PM, Jason Evans wrote: > On Apr 2, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Oleksandr Tymoshenko wrote: >> On 02/04/2012 1:31 PM, Jason Evans wrote: >>> >>> Can we remove the NO_TLS definitions in src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c? I can't test the result, of course… >> >> How do I test it? Will running buildword on MIPS device with >> these changes be sufficient? Or do we have specific tests for it? > > I typically two two rounds of buildworld/installworld/reboot to make sure that the newly installed toolchain still works. This paranoia is mainly to catch problems with static binaries, which won't change in this case, so one round is probably enough. [...] Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TLS on ARM and MIPS X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:41:46 -0000 On 02/04/2012 2:23 PM, Jason Evans wrote: > On Apr 2, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Oleksandr Tymoshenko wrote: >> On 02/04/2012 1:31 PM, Jason Evans wrote: >>> >>> Can we remove the NO_TLS definitions in src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c? I can't test the result, of course… >> >> How do I test it? Will running buildword on MIPS device with >> these changes be sufficient? Or do we have specific tests for it? > > I typically two two rounds of buildworld/installworld/reboot to make sure that the newly installed toolchain still works. This paranoia is mainly to catch problems with static binaries, which won't change in this case, so one round is probably enough. I tested it for MIPS - works fine. Unfortunately I don't have ARM hardware that works with HEAD so can't test ARM part of the change.