Re: gcc 4.5 and TLS
Andreas Schwab dixit:
>One cost is ABI breakage.
Hrm, that is true. But then: is that syscall/structure used already?
I think I get an idea of the trouble though…
On the other hand, changing gcc’s default alignment may break
the ABI as well, no?
>Also, I'm not yet convinced this works in all
>situations, like for locks allocated on stack.
That may not work, yes, since gcc is brain-dead and assumes that
the stack is already aligned “properly”. What is the default stack
alignment on m68k (in real life, not by some ABI)? If it’s 4, I
think it shouldn’t be a problem.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
Reply to: