This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: About tls comment.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:45:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: About tls comment.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131101164400 dot GA4917 at domone dot podge> <87sivgyopi dot fsf at igel dot home> <20131101221614 dot GK20515 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <87mwln5mii dot fsf at igel dot home> <20131102145827 dot GA10582 at domone dot podge> <52752C3F dot 9090904 at redhat dot com> <20131103144247 dot GA17129 at domone dot podge>
On 11/03/2013 09:42 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 12:45:51PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 11/02/2013 10:58 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 07:46:29AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>> Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 07:14:01PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>>> OndÅej BÃlka <neleai@seznam.cz> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It dates back to 2002. This comment puzzles me, as we do tls
>>>>>>> initialization just below or did I missed something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See <http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc/history.git/commitdiff/19485a5>.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not immediately apparent to me how this answers the question. If
>>>>> you know more and it's not too big a time-waster, could you comment a
>>>>> bit more on it?
>>>>
>>>> You have to ask Uli on it.
>>>>
>>> From diff this looks like obsolete comment after code changed.
>>>
>>> More specifically what is wrong with patch below?
>>
>> I don't know, but the undocumented interdependencies for TLS
>> are large and complicated. It would take me quite a bit of
>> review to figure it out.
>>
> That is why I asked as somebody might know. If not then bug 13823 needs to
> be suspended.
Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound harsh or negative about your
own abilities, questions or patch. I admire and am excited to see
your tackling of the existing glibc bugs.
I agree that suspending the bug is probably the best course of
action until someone can review and document more of the TLS
interdependencies in the dynamic linker.
Cheers,
Carlos.