From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 23 23:26:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A6B16A4CE for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BF8F43D4C for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:26:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 67257 invoked by uid 1002); 24 Mar 2004 07:26:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.4.1.17?) (64.58.1.252) by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 24 Mar 2004 07:26:53 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:31:23 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Long X-X-Sender: scottl@pooker.samsco.home To: Daniel Eischen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040324002624.T55727@pooker.samsco.home> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Marcel Moolenaar cc: Julian Elischer cc: FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: SF Bay area hackfest X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:26:56 -0000 On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Scott Long wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > > 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... > > > > Operating without a plan or commitments leads us back to 2002 with KSE. > > If TLS needs a new binutils, then we need to figure out who is going to > > provide that. If no one is going to provide it, then the rest is futile, > > no? > > Right, but the prerequisite for TLS is a new toolchain, not the > other way around; you don't need TLS support in non-toolchain > components to update the toolchain. Once the toolchain supports > TLS, support for it can be added at any time, regardless of whether > or not it is before or after 5.3. And yes, we (thread-guys) would > like to support it for 5.3 and have said so for quite some time. > We've already rearranged our per-{thread,KSE} storage to allow for > it. Maybe something got misunderstood, then. My intention was to create a list of tasks that need to be done in order to reach the final goal of having TLS work. New binutils is one of those tasks. I also wanted to stress that each task needs an owner, otherwise it won't get done. Don't make me pull out MSProject and do this in a Ven diagram =-) > > > > > What happens when the compiler, toolchain, etc, etc, are all updated to > > make TLS work, but the user libmaps C_R in? Does stuff blow up? I'm ok > > with C_R not explicitely supporting it so long as it doesn't create new > > failure cases. > > I guess stuff blows up, probably very similar to what already > happens when someone tries to use nvidia drivers/openGL with > libpthread or libthr. But as far as I know, nothing we have > is currently built to use it (it probably can't be because > our released toolchain first needs to support it). > This isn't terribly desirable since C_R is going to be the fallback thread package for 5.x. Is there any way for C_R to detect when it's in a position to blow up and/or give an intelligent message to the user? Scott