On Sep 19, 2005, "Menezes, Evandro" wrote: > Alexandre, >> Please read the document referenced in the patch, for >> starters. In it you'll see the exact spelling of the coding >> samples is not final yet, and it doesn't make sense to >> maintain yet another copy of this until it settles down. > When it does, it'll be added to the ABI then. Not before. For now, it's OK to reserve the relocation numbers in this mailing list. >> Also, you'll find that the calculations are not quite >> possible to express in the way other relocations are >> expressed; suggestions are welcome. > State so, perhaps in a note, expanding what they mean. >> Finally, what's wrong >> with following the existing practice of referring to TLS >> specs elsewhere? > The intent is that the x86-64 ABI remains a stand-alone document as much as possible. It's not quite there yet, but adding yet another external reference sets it back even further. > BTW, the TLS reference is slated to be incorporated into the x86-64 ABI. >> The point of this posting was more to reserve the relocation >> numbers for these purposes (the purpose of the relocations is >> quite solid already, even though the numbers have changed as >> recently as yesterday), but I'm yet to do some more >> performance tests with some minor variations of the code >> sequences to choose the best one. I don't want to have to >> maintain all this information in sync between multiple specs >> documents and the several different packages that implement >> them; having a single specs document is much better for now. > That's fine. When it reaches a mature state, patches against the ABI will be more than welcome. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Secretary for FSF Latin America http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}