From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14029 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2011 22:50:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 14020 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2011 22:50:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_BL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:50:27 +0000 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so1154426qwh.20 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:50:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.214.5 with SMTP id gy5mr287880qab.386.1307141425011; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.6.140 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DE4BCE2.8050501@codesourcery.com> References: <4DC8DFF6.4000600@codesourcery.com> <4DDEF499.9090206@linaro.org> <4DE4BCE2.8050501@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ARM] TLS Descriptor support From: Ramana Radhakrishnan To: Nathan Sidwell Cc: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 On 31 May 2011 11:03, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 05/27/11 01:47, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >> Could you consider adding a check in the configury to test if a binutils >> version >> of recent vintage is being used when --with-tls=3Dgnu is in ? > > I thought about that and it didn't seem worth it. =A0We're not autodetect= ing > whether to default to gnu-style tls and you'll find out soon enough if yo= ur > binutils is too old. I noticed this today - and maybe I don't quite understand it yet. > /* The + is to avoid an assembly parse ambiguity with symbols that > + look like register names, which is unsuccessfully recovered from.= */ > + return TARGET_THUMB2 ? "blx\\t%c0(tlscall)" : "bl\\t+%c0(tlscall)"; How are things handled for Thumb1 in case someone builds a routine for Thumb1 which uses tlsdesc ? I went and read the doc and didn't see any difference between T1 and T2 in the specification . Would the linker and everyone else do the right thing or should we have the blx instruction for TARGET_THUMB and v5t . I have a feeling that I'm missing something here . cheers Ramana > > nathan > > -- > Nathan Sidwell > >