This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: __thread

From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:20:05 +0000
Subject: Re: __thread
References: <3E7A0A68.1000902@eCosCentric.com> <20030320215515.GD2006@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson wrote:

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:37:28PM +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:

May I suggest that GCC extensions be labelled as such, e.g. __gcc_thread ?
No.  Not the least of reasons being that we're implementing a
multi-vendor extension.

Ugh. After some searching I see this is the TLS ABI, originating from the Itanium psABI. So presumably Intel happened to choose __thread and everyone else is now lumbered. Sigh. Courtesy of google I've seen plenty of free projects have already had to jump through hoops because of this poor choice. It's not even descriptive!

Oh well.

Jifl
--
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine

Follow-Ups:
- Re: __thread
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- Re: __thread
  - From: Jonathan Larmour
- Re: __thread
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]