On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:28:53AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:46:11PM +0100, Dominic Sweetman wrote: > > I guess our main message was that we felt it would be a mistake just > > to add a thread register to o32 (which produces a substantially > > incompatible new ABI anyway). > > Completely agree... > > > Until that all works, what we had in mind is that we'd do NPTL over > > o32 by defining a system call to return a per-thread ID which is or > > can be converted into a per-thread data pointer. We suspected that > > NPTL's per-thread-data model allows the use of cunning macros or > > library functions to make that look OK. > > > > Ought we to go further and see exactly how that can be done? > > It shouldn't be at all hard. The way NPTL's __thread support works, > the only things that should have to know where the TLS base is are > (A) GCC, so it can load it and (B) GDB, via some new ptrace op. Are you implying one can implement TLS support without changing O32 ABI? Interesting... I know Boris Hu has tried to implemented NPTL with another approach which does not rely on TLS support (use "--without-tls"). According to him this approach is getting harder these days. Jun
