This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: libgcc: why emutls.c in LIB2ADDEH instead of LIB2ADD?

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:20:39 +0100
Subject: Re: libgcc: why emutls.c in LIB2ADDEH instead of LIB2ADD?
References: <201111201128.pAKBSpOW029056@ignucius.se.axis.com> <4EC9A137.2060504@redhat.com>

On 11/21/2011 01:54 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:

>  Emulating TLS has nothing to do with exception-handling, nor is
>  there something that might throw while calling one of its
>  functions.
>
>  Ok to fix that?


Not without further study.  There was a reason we wanted these
in libgcc_eh.a.  I can't recall exactly why at the moment; it
should be in the archives...

Nope, the first version at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00903.html already had it in LIB2ADDEH*. Perhaps Jakub has some ideas too.

H-P, can you try bootstrapping your patch on cygwin and/or mingw too before applying it?

Paolo

References:
- libgcc: why emutls.c in LIB2ADDEH instead of LIB2ADD?
  - From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
- Re: libgcc: why emutls.c in LIB2ADDEH instead of LIB2ADD?
  - From: Richard Henderson

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