r5901 - glibc-package/branches/eglibc-2.18/debian/patches/hurd-i386
Author: sthibault
Date: 2013-12-31 13:05:39 +0000 (Tue, 31 Dec 2013)
New Revision: 5901
Modified:
glibc-package/branches/eglibc-2.18/debian/patches/hurd-i386/tg-tls_thread_leak.diff
Log:
refresh patch
Modified: glibc-package/branches/eglibc-2.18/debian/patches/hurd-i386/tg-tls_thread_leak.diff
===================================================================
--- glibc-package/branches/eglibc-2.18/debian/patches/hurd-i386/tg-tls_thread_leak.diff 2013-12-31 12:38:37 UTC (rev 5900)
+++ glibc-package/branches/eglibc-2.18/debian/patches/hurd-i386/tg-tls_thread_leak.diff 2013-12-31 13:05:39 UTC (rev 5901)
@@ -13,11 +13,9 @@
sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/tls.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
-diff --git a/sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/tls.h b/sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/tls.h
-index 4f4c7c5..07c02e0 100644
--- a/sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/tls.h
+++ b/sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/tls.h
-@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ static inline const char * __attribute__ ((unused))
+@@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ static inline const char * __attribute__
_hurd_tls_init (tcbhead_t *tcb, int secondcall)
{
HURD_TLS_DESC_DECL (desc, tcb);
@@ -26,7 +24,7 @@
if (!secondcall)
{
-@@ -65,25 +67,26 @@ _hurd_tls_init (tcbhead_t *tcb, int secondcall)
+@@ -76,25 +78,26 @@ _hurd_tls_init (tcbhead_t *tcb, int seco
from the TLS point of view. */
tcb->tcb = tcb;
@@ -60,9 +58,9 @@
}
/* Now install the new selector. */
-@@ -96,21 +99,29 @@ _hurd_tls_init (tcbhead_t *tcb, int secondcall)
+@@ -107,21 +110,29 @@ _hurd_tls_init (tcbhead_t *tcb, int seco
asm ("mov %%gs, %w0" : "=q" (sel) : "0" (0));
- if (__builtin_expect (sel, 0x50) & 4) /* LDT selector */
+ if (__builtin_expect (sel, 0x48) & 4) /* LDT selector */
{
- kern_return_t err = __i386_set_ldt (tcb->self, sel, &desc, 1);
+ kern_return_t err = __i386_set_ldt (self, sel, &desc, 1);
@@ -95,5 +93,3 @@
}
/* Code to initially initialize the thread pointer. This might need
---
-tg: (9a079e2..) t/tls_thread_leak (depends on: baseline)
Reply to: