This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Add ___tls_get_addr
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, nd <nd at arm dot com>, "x86-64-abi at googlegroups dot com" <x86-64-abi at googlegroups dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:25:40 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: Add ___tls_get_addr
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOrYdAh6kJUUTdyzWdwfhEWVuiHJVs5xhp4pVbeB6hEM1w@mail.gmail.com> <595D0B89.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAMe9rOo12ow=WPo4_01rrtq-WFnqKR_f1yXZq4=PXKBSjyV=Fg@mail.gmail.com> <595DEF7B.email@example.com> <CAMe9rOqQMxkvf0S_FHjdgtTGHt1SKy2LpCzGdNqgzKB=Yn4_Hw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:06:55AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > or there are cases when libraries built against
> > one libc is used with another (e.g. musl can
> > mostly use a libstdc++ compiled against glibc
> > on x86_64)
> This happens every time when a new version of a function
> is added to glibc. musl has to deal with it.
That's not a problem I really care about, but again, I don't think
this change is necessary or beneficial.
> > i think introducing new libc<->compiler abi
> This is no different from adding a new version of a function
> to glibc.
> > should be done conservatively when it is really
> > necessary and from Rich's mail it seems there
> > is no need for new abi here.
I don't see how the necessity follows from there.