This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
RE: RFC: TLS improvements for IA32 and AMD64/EM64T
- From: "Menezes, Evandro" <evandro dot menezes at amd dot com>
- To: "Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>, "Michael Matz" <matz at suse dot de>, discuss at x86-64 dot org, "Andreas Jaeger" <aj at suse dot de>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, "Meissner, Michael" <michael dot meissner at amd dot com>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:21:41 -0500
- Subject: RE: RFC: TLS improvements for IA32 and AMD64/EM64T
Oi, Alexandre.
> > Would you consider adding the calculations for the new relocations
> > in order to improve their clarity?
>
> I can try, although relaxations make it much trickier than it might
> seem.
Where possible. If it gets too hairy, the text should spill the beans instead.
> > I remember some examples in your paper at the GCC Summit and adding
> > them to section 3.5 would be swell too.
>
> So we're talking *really* self-contained, eh? Fair enough, I'll take
> a shot.
I appreciate it. It sure makes this psABI much more solid. As is, it already refers to too many external ABIs, such as SY, i386 and C++, so I think that it exhausted its credit for external references. :-)
> > From your paper at the GCC Summit it's quite clear that such
> > additions to the psABI would be a fine idea. Perhaps HJ would like
> > to consider the corresponding additions for the i386 psABI
> > extension.
>
> H.J., do you have the i386 psABI in source form somewhere I could get
> it, to make the corresponding changes?
Actually, it's about an extension to the i386 psABI and it's an idea still in its infancy: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-09/msg00342.html.
> > So, there's no question about the technical part of your proposal.
> > But, as you can infer from my comments above, I'd like to improve
> > the clarity of the psABI so that one wouldn't have to go to specific
> > implementations to figure out the details. What do you think?
>
> Sounds like a reasonable goal.
>
> > -+referenced symbol binds locally, the \texttt{DTPOFF} may
> be omitted.
> > ++referenced symbol binds locally, the relocations
> \texttt{R_X86_64_64} and \texttt{R_X86_64_32} may be used instead.
>
> No, in such cases the linker omits the relocation entirely, and fills
> the corresponding stop with the value it can compute itself.
Then how would you phrase it?
> If you'd rather install a patch with these minor modifications and
> keep the more detailed patch separate, let me know and I'll send you
> what I have right away.
That sounds like a fine idea. As I haven't heard comments in contrary, there seems to be an unspoken agreement that it should be added. Feel free to send the patch with minor changes and if we don't hear anything against it until the Oct 12 (GMT), I'll apply it.
Thank you,
--
_______________________________________________________
Evandro Menezes AMD Austin, TX