From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22759 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2014 08:53:45 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22748 invoked by uid 89); 27 Sep 2014 08:53:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_HEADERS,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:53:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8R8rfUP010197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 04:53:41 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink ([10.3.113.10]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8R8rdPx000663; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 04:53:40 -0400 Message-ID: <54267B12.70602@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:53:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gcc-patches Subject: Re: Avoid privatization of TLS variables References: <20140920031617.GB2325@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20140924175326.GE29454@x4> <20140924181836.GE6871@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <54266DC1.9060708@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <54266DC1.9060708@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg02451.txt.bz2 On 27/09/14 08:56, Andrew Haley wrote: > I may be guilty of missing a crucial point here, but: why do we care > about having a small limit of static TLS variables? > > We surely could allocate, say, a megabyte of static TLS for each > thread. We already allocate 64M for the thread-local malloc arena, On 64-bit systems, I mean. > after all. It doesn't cost anything beyond a little address space. > > What am I missing? > > Andrew. >