Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 23:39:21 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: davem@caip.rutgers.edu (David S. Miller), terry@lambert.org, deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jb@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au Subject: Re: GNAT-pthreads integration bugs/questions Message-ID: <199705190441.WAA26421@pluto.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 May 1997 22:30:02 CDT." <199705190330.WAA10372@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > Put it at the bottom on the threads stack... >> >> There is no threads stack in an rfork. >> >> A thread lacks a stack with rfork(), is this what you are >> saying? How in the world does this work? >> >Why does rfork need to be concerned with a stack? It can >be handled in userland. > >John It sounds to me like using the base of the stack would be an excelent and cheap way to implement the equivelent of NT's "thread local storage". You'd need toolchain support at the very least with the program image specifying the amount of stack space to "reserve". -- Justin T. Gibbs =========================================== FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations ===========================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705190441.WAA26421>