From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug  5 15:06:13 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8AFF516A4CE; Thu,  5 Aug 2004 15:06:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4867A43D1D; Thu,  5 Aug 2004 15:06:13 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i75F6C3w002131;
	Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:06:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:06:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <200408051553.51692.dfr@nlsystems.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10408051101380.756-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Pthread patches for TLS
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:06:13 -0000

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Doug Rabson wrote:

> I haven't tried to support static linked TLS at all. The plan is to get 
> the kernel to size the TLS segment and add extra AUXARGs to report its 
> size, initialiser location and alignment. The stubs in libc/gen/tls.c 
> would be extended to provide support for allocating the TLS blocks in 
> the static case.
> 
> I was under the impression that no-one particularly wanted to support 
> pthreads in statically linked binaries?

The thread guys don't want to support static thread libraries ;-)
But I proposed this a few months ago (year?) in -current and there
was some reluctance.  Imp was one that was against it (from what I
can remember).  The reason given was speed of static binaries is
faster than dynamic.  I didn't force the issue any more than that.
That's how I recall it anyways.  I'll have to search the list
archives to see if I can find the thread.

-- 
Dan Eischen