1. or1k + riscv define both __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast(). Is there a point? Unless it is some ABI nit, it looks like a bug to me? 2. Harmonize namespacing __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast(). This is known issue to me abd it bites me from time to time, working for one CPU and breaking on other as namespacing is inconsistent are different. http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00210-x86-getprivate.txt Does it look good? __BEGIN_DECLS and __END_DECLS are probably unneeded here, but it is just for the sake of consistency among all ports.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature