This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Can we assume __thread support?
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:51:45 +0200
- Subject: Re: Can we assume __thread support?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <561FB294 dot 1010602 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOq9-oN_gdWReP6ZgCfLpj_SPzdOB7OqfGhJzdX2ryCBGw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 10/15/2015 04:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Can we assume that GCC supports __thread?
>>
>> This would allow some cleanups in the malloc subdirectory in particular.
>>
>
> We should.
We have this:
if test "$libc_cv_gcc___thread" = no; then
AC_MSG_ERROR([support for the __thread keyword is required])
fi
since:
commit 3ce1f2959437e952b9db4eaeed2407424f11a4d1
Author: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Sep 10 14:34:15 2011 -0400
Cleanup of configuration options
Make several tool features mandatory and simplify the code.
The question is whether this is just a syntactic thing, or if we can
assume that __thread support in binutils works. We also have test cases
for __thread-related things, and I can't see that they are conditional
on anything or XFAILed.
This is mainly a Hurd/NaCl question anyway, the NPTL-based platforms
support it.
Florian