This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [ARM] TLS Descriptor support
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 23:50:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ARM] TLS Descriptor support
- References: <4DC8DFF6.4000600@codesourcery.com> <4DDEF499.9090206@linaro.org> <4DE4BCE2.8050501@codesourcery.com>
On 31 May 2011 11:03, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 05/27/11 01:47, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>> Could you consider adding a check in the configury to test if a binutils
>> version
>> of recent vintage is being used when --with-tls=gnu is in ?
>
> I thought about that and it didn't seem worth it. ?We're not autodetecting
> whether to default to gnu-style tls and you'll find out soon enough if your
> binutils is too old.
I noticed this today - and maybe I don't quite understand it yet.
> /* The + is to avoid an assembly parse ambiguity with symbols that
> + look like register names, which is unsuccessfully recovered from. */
> + return TARGET_THUMB2 ? "blx\\t%c0(tlscall)" : "bl\\t+%c0(tlscall)";
How are things handled for Thumb1 in case someone builds a routine for
Thumb1 which uses tlsdesc ? I went and read the doc and didn't see any
difference between T1 and T2 in the specification . Would the linker
and everyone else do the right thing or should we have the blx
instruction for TARGET_THUMB and v5t . I have a feeling that I'm
missing something here .
cheers
Ramana
>
> nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
>
>