From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-267636-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20963 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2010 08:42:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 20955 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jul 2010 08:42:51 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from c2bthomr06.btconnect.com (HELO c2bthomr06.btconnect.com) (213.123.20.124)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:42:47 +0000
Received: from thor.office (host81-138-1-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.138.1.83])	by c2bthomr06.btconnect.com	with ESMTP id FTU41777;	Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:42:16 +0100 (BST)
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1,	source=Queried,	refid=0001.0A0B0301.4C358F68.0268,	actions=tag
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>,        Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <36946F52-68E0-413D-A9E7-891AE6800E63@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk>
From: IainS <developer@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C350C25.2030308@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: [Patch, updated] Make emulated TLS lto-friendly.
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:42:00 -0000
References: <ED394B6D-943B-4EC5-8ABF-B540166AF6D8@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk> <4C350C25.2030308@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2

Hello Richard,
Thanks for the review and sorry about the typographical nits...
I'll re-work the other things and investigate the alias oracle.

one question tho:

On 8 Jul 2010, at 00:22, Richard Henderson wrote:

>> +  /* ??? It is not enough to check DECL_COMMON because variables  
>> might be
>> +     allocated in other uninitialized sections.  However, this  
>> might still
>> +     not be an adequate test.  */
>> +  if (DECL_INITIAL (h->to))
>
> Huh?  Why is DECL_COMMON not sufficient?

int foo (void)
{
   static __thread int a;
   return a;
}

places __emutls_v.a.1700  in .lcomm and therefore needs an  
initializer, but the decl is not marked DECL_COMMON.
do you believe that indicates a bug elsewhere, or is it a reasonable  
explanation?

thanks
Iain