From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id B3F343858CDB; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:17:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B3F343858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707740259;
	bh=aGnit/UorQ/RFMZVZRftRhYiUTOlXar4kwU9qlvhxHE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=kQQpOCdV89vLVxx7PxcW/cNiVfynbTf0gk9MgG+4RGguEuUKNkOmXwCfiF9P6OPey
	 52eaeBngbEvRHiZriv8bc215VQqdchA+CODVhao7fkW5JuYY2kyTxOMAGWjMR44Lts
	 VWmEVWg7cMkv4ZQzGp8gvoqS6nE82jRMvBXE5eZg=
From: "fw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113874] GNU2 TLS descriptor calls do not follow psABI on
 x86_64-linux-gnu
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:17:38 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: fw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113874-4-u3b4qv9gCv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113874-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113874-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113874

--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> I do wonder why __tls_get_addr would have to call the overloaded malloc, =
can
> we just not force-bind it to the glibc local malloc (and make sure that's
> compiled with -mgeneral-regs-only)?

Using the glibc malloc just for some small TLS allocation is rather wasteful
because of its (mostly) per-thread data structures. Allocating from the main
arena potentially clashes with brk usage from the replacement malloc.

We'd need an alternative memory allocator (in addition to replacement string
functions), but that is known to break Thread Sanitizer and Leak Sanitizer.=