Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:42:13 +0100 From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP! KSE needs more attention Message-ID: <200406072242.13393.dfr@nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <20040607194237.GA10406@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10406061551210.16558-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <1086625355.10911.39.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com> <20040607194237.GA10406@ns1.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 07 June 2004 20:42, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 05:22:35PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote: > > > > Actually its a bit better than that. It works for most use > > > > cases right now on i386 but would get confused on dlclose. I'll > > > > fix that before I move it into current. > > > > > > Does it work on static bound executables? > > > > Which one is static bound > > The executable; you know, no rtld. What I call complete executable to > distinguish it from static TLS on my page. Does static TLS work? > > See also: http://wiki.daemon.li/index.pl?ThreadLocalStorage No, this one is not yet supported. I think I can deal with this inside libc with some small support from the kernel (probably just to provide details of the TLS segment size etc.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406072242.13393.dfr>