On 12.09.2020 22:06, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:45:42PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 11.09.2020 23:38, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:07:24PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>>> The current code is confusing, as it attempts to use unimplemented >>>> _PTHREAD_GETTCB_EXT() and in one place uses _lwp_getprivate_fast() in >>>> other _lwp_getprivate(). This caused my confusion... as I assumed that >>>> _lwp_getprivate_fast() is internal and _lwp_getprivate() for public >>>> consumption. >>> >>> _PTHREAD_GETTCB_EXT is a rump hack. There is no _lwp_getprivate_fast. >>> There is __lwp_getprivate_fast, which originally wasn't implemented on >>> architectures without a fast path (like VAX). Nowadays, all functional >>> ports provide either __lwp_getprivate_fast (potentially with a fall-back >>> to the system call) or __lwp_gettcb_fast. The difference is whether the >>> TLS register is biased or not. >>> >> >> Do you agree with this patch: >> >> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00278-_rtld_tls_self.txt > > No, I don't see the point. > What's the alternative to use in 3rd party code? > Joerg >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature