From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-87656-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7508 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2017 23:13:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 7498 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2017 23:13:48 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:1002
X-HELO: port70.net
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:13:00 -0000
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, nd@arm.com,
	Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
	Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
	Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>,
	James Greenhalgh <James.Greenhalgh@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nptl: change default stack guard size of threads
Message-ID: <20171129231344.GR15263@port70.net>
References: <5A1ECB40.9080801@arm.com>
 <76c38ecf-6497-c96c-5c8c-95cceed100a5@redhat.com>
 <5A1EFF28.9050406@arm.com>
 <5c796246-1907-8cf4-00fc-eee11614b092@redhat.com>
 <20171129205148.GG1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <00c123b5-dd46-6777-2c24-d80eae8d35df@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00c123b5-dd46-6777-2c24-d80eae8d35df@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg01031.txt.bz2

* Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> [2017-11-29 22:02:48 +0100]:
> On 11/29/2017 09:51 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Hm? What are you thinking of that GCC might have gotten wrong?
> 
> Use 64 KiB probe intervals (almost) everywhere as an optimization.  I
> assumed the original RFC patch was motivated by that.
> 
> I knew that ARM would be broken because that's what the gcc ARM maintainers
> want.  I assumed that it was restricted to that, but now I'm worried that
> it's not.

no,
it was just much easier to post the patch without setting a
value for each target separately, i believe that larger guard
is useful on all 64bit targets, but to make the patch depend
on __WORDSIZE is also wrong since i knew i'd need different
setting for aarch64 ilp32