From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21942 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2011 07:10:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 21933 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Sep 2011 07:10:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (74.125.121.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:09:56 +0000 Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p8679s6C008279 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 00:09:54 -0700 Received: from yxj19 (yxj19.prod.google.com [10.190.3.83]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p8679emf022348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 00:09:53 -0700 Received: by yxj19 with SMTP id 19so3193447yxj.33 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.156.4 with SMTP id x4mr4198746icw.96.1315292993058; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.156.4 with SMTP id x4mr4198741icw.96.1315292992930; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coign.google.com ([216.239.45.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o5sm17671736ibu.12.2011.09.06.00.09.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:09:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Kevin Klues Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: TLS, gcc optimizations, and PIC on x86 References: Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Kevin Klues's message of "Thu, 1 Sep 2011 00:15:23 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 Kevin Klues writes: > That said, do you see any obvious issues with my solution? It seems > to work for all of the test cases I've thrown at it, but I could be > missing something. Additionally, do you have any suggestions for a > better method that achieves similar results? Ideally I'd like a > solution that didn't require the use of the 'optimize' attribute as > (unfortunately) some of the systems on which we'd like to compile our > code still use gcc < 4.4. I don't see any obvious issues with your solution. I'm not sure why you need to use the optimize attribute; I would have expected that the noinline attribute would be sufficient here. Ian