From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31853 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2013 14:19:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 31765 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2013 14:19:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout11.t-online.de (HELO mailout11.t-online.de) (194.25.134.85) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:19:33 +0000 Received: from fwd14.aul.t-online.de (fwd14.aul.t-online.de ) by mailout11.t-online.de with smtp id 1TrUaw-0000tV-IV; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:19:30 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.103] (Ssl8k-Z6ZhNpPFBWt4T21J3cQ7LXlJ6Giw02g8FXBcIE4FriHz29XJZdLHlz55VQ-n@[93.218.165.168]) by fwd14.t-online.de with esmtp id 1TrUav-1bku1Y0; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:19:29 +0100 Message-ID: <1357395569.20631.12.camel@yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] SH 4.8 changes - document thread pointer built-ins From: Oleg Endo To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Kaz Kojima Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:19:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1349733920.21984.52.camel@yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> <1350428236.2348.110.camel@yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 Hi, On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 19:13 -1000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Hi Oleg, > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Oleg Endo wrote: > >> +
  • Added support for the built-in functions > >> + __builtin_thread_pointer and > >> + __builtin_set_thread_pointer. This assumes that > >> + GBR is used to hold the thread pointer of the current thread, > >> + which has been the case since a while already. > >> > >> "since a while" -> "for a while", and I made that change. > >> That said, why is this important, and is there a fixed date or version? > > It might be important for some embedded systems software that does not > > use the GBR for storing the thread pointer, but for something else (like > > a pointer to some global table of frequently used stuff or something > > like that). I just thought it might be better to mention this. But > > you're right, the last "for a while" part sounds strange, and should > > probably just be removed, reducing it to "This assumes that > > GBR is used to hold the thread pointer of the current > > thread." > > That sounds good. I noticed this has not been changed yet, so I > assume you were probably waiting for my response? Will you be > making this change? I also assume I was waiting for your response ;) (it's been a while, can't remember exactly). I'll send a patch with the change. Thanks for reminding me. Cheers, Oleg