Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make powerpc64 use __thread for per-cpu variables

From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 07:05:24 +1000

> No, Richard has a point, it's not the value that is the concern, it's
> the address, which gcc could assume is still valid after a barrier.
> Drat.

Oh right, and that's currently part of why we obfuscate the
address computation with the RELOC_HIDE() buisness.

Once we expose what's really going on with something like
__thread, gcc can now be "smart" about it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make powerpc64 use __thread for per-cpu variables
    • From: Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make powerpc64 use __thread for per-cpu variables
    • From: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make powerpc64 use __thread for per-cpu variables
    • From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Stability of 2.6.17-rc3?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make powerpc64 use __thread for per-cpu variables
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make powerpc64 use __thread for per-cpu variables
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]