From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24303 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2002 02:03:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24250 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2002 02:03:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2002 02:03:11 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E3B3CC5; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D2A2D9F.10605@ges.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 19:19:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: initial TLS patch References: <3D23129A.8070207@ges.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 > But, to me, it seems like this interface explicitly reflects the > quirks of the TLS implementation. What if some other TLS > implementation requires, say, relocs to be applied to the > initialization image? What if some processor with lots of registers > puts small TLS variables in registers? (You could have register-sized > relocs, and let the static linker assign the register number. > Dynamically linked code couldn't do this, but that's okay.) > Maybe that's contrived. But given how hairy TLS seems to be, I expect > to see some variety in the implementations. And each time we > encounter another variant, then this interface will need to again be > expanded to accomodate that. This target method will end up showing > every possible way anyone has ever constructed a thread-local value. For all we know, that thread implementation could be so incompatible with what you're adding that they need to add yet another LOC. As I noted before: > Having it return something more complicated like a ``struct value'' can be left to the person that actually needs the mechanism - I figure they will be in a better position to determine exactly what mechanism is needed. I think this is very important. To apply the old engineering motto - K.I.S.S. I also noted that: > Perhaphs there should be a separate ``struct location'' object? I'll post this to gdb@. Andrew