Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:49:51 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: SF Bay area hackfest Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403231616280.23950-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20040323140429.L55727@pooker.samsco.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Scott Long wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > With new binutils we should (*) be able, with minimal more work be able > > to generate statically linked binaries using TLS. (*) the loader needs > > to set some values into symbols and the thread scheduler needs code to > > allocate a segment of 'M' bytes every time it rceates a new thread and > > set a pointer to it.. (it already allocates some info but it needs to > > allocate 'M' bytes more) where 'M' is the statically detirmined TLS > > size. > > > > The next step would be to add code to the dynamic linker to be able to > > allocate TLS segments to modules as it loads them. The TLS spec pretty > > much outlines what needs to be done.. > > > > We NEED to do this.. it is not a "may be nice" item. > > TLS is becoming standard on many platforms and more and more software > > is ASSUMING it is present. (e.g. nvidia drivers). > > > > So what david is asking for (and what I've asked for in the past) is a > list of tasks that need to be done, and and who is going to be responsible > for each one. This is a very reasonable request, and is one that I'm For the KSE bits, we've already said a few times that we're ready to go but are waiting for a toolchain upgrade that supports TLS. > going to enforce. I don't want 5.3 to go out with hap-hazard and/or > unfinished TLS support. SO let me start the list, and I'll let you and > others add to it. If we can't get through this step, then there is > absolutely no way that we can expect to get this done for 5.3. And for > the record, I would really, really like to see this done for 5.3. I don't quite understand why you need commitments for a toolchain upgrade. From what I understand, TLS support can't happen without it, and by deferring the toolchain update you prevent it from getting done. But I'll play along regardless... > Task Owner > > Import new GCC Alexander Kavaev > Import new binutils ??? > Modify loader (image activator?) > to understand TLS ??? > Modify KSE to understand TLS ??? Yes, I'm sure I and/or David can support this. > Modify THR to understand TLS ??? > Modify C_R to understand TLS ??? Death to C_R, death to C_R, ... > Modify dynamic linker for TLS ??? > > What else? Is there any platform specific work to be done, outside of the > toolchain? -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10403231616280.23950-100000>