From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Tom Honermann <tom@honermann.net>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3]: C++20 P0482R6 and C2X N2653: Implement mbrtoc8, c8rtomb, char8_t
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 14:39:31 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cec9e905-9018-5dc2-d5d2-1b68f92d427f@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ccdfa0b5-87f0-8ab2-35d7-c2e5e280f934@honermann.net>
On 18/05/2022 14:26, Tom Honermann wrote:
> On 5/18/22 12:17 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 12:32, Tom Honermann wrote:
>>> On 5/17/22 5:33 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> * Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2022 15:12, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +/* This is the private state used if PS is NULL. */
>>>>>>>> +static mbstate_t state;
>>>>>>> Although it was done for other convertion interfaces, I wonder if we should
>>>>>>> keep supporting this mt-unsafe usage for newer ones. It was not clear from
>>>>>> In C23 it's implementation-defined whether the internal state for such
>>>>>> functions has static or thread storage duration (see the general
>>>>>> introduction to the uchar.h functions).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so glibc still need to support either mode.
>>>> No, I think we can and should switch. Maybe with new symbol versions
>>>> (but the same implementation) if we want to play it conservative.
>>>>
>>>> The intent in POSIX and C has been for a long time that thread-local
>>>> state is permitted for these functions, only the wording did not
>>>> technically allow it. The phrase was “not required to avoid data
>>>> races”. The problem is that it's possible to tell the difference
>>>> without data races (with external synchronization). Many libcs already
>>>> use thread-local state for these functions, without any apparent ill
>>>> effects.
>>> I would err on the side of maintaining consistency across these functions for now and then transition them all at once if there is a desire to do so.
>> Do we need to keep distinct states for each one or can use the a shared
>> one?
>
> Each is required to maintain its own state. The relevant wording from C17 7.28.1 (Restartable multibyte/wide character conversion functions) paragraph 1 states:
>
> These functions have a parameter, ps, of type pointer to mbstate_t that points to an object that can completely describe the current conversion state of the associated multibyte character sequence, which the functions alter as necessary. *If ps is a null pointer, each function uses its own internal **mbstate_t**object instead, which is initialized at program startup to the initial conversion state; the****functions are not required to avoid data races with other calls to the same function in this case. The **implementation behaves as if no library function calls these functions with a null pointer for ps.*
Yeah, I forgot that I just read this very sentence yesterday reviewing you patch.
So it it currently 88 bytes per thread (104 considering the mbrtoc8, c8rtomb)
per thread state if we make it thread-local. We can maybe lazy allocate the
whole wcsmbs state, so we just keep a pointer per thread.
We already have the internal scheme to allocate ion tcb (tls-internal.h) so
it does not exhaust static tls allocation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-18 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-27 16:53 Tom Honermann
2022-02-28 23:01 ` Joseph Myers
2022-03-01 3:40 ` Tom Honermann
2022-05-17 15:57 ` Carlos O'Donell
2022-05-17 18:05 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-05-17 18:12 ` Joseph Myers
2022-05-17 18:17 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-05-17 21:33 ` Florian Weimer
2022-05-18 15:32 ` Tom Honermann
2022-05-18 16:17 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-05-18 17:26 ` Tom Honermann
2022-05-18 17:39 ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2022-05-18 17:40 ` Florian Weimer
2022-05-18 17:57 ` Adhemerval Zanella
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-01-08 0:39 Tom Honermann
2022-01-11 0:53 ` Joseph Myers
2022-01-11 19:23 ` Tom Honermann
2022-01-20 23:17 ` Tom Honermann
2022-01-21 20:01 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-01-22 12:24 ` Tom Honermann
2022-02-16 18:29 ` Joseph Myers
2022-02-16 19:14 ` tom
2021-06-07 2:08 Tom Honermann
2021-06-07 18:53 ` Joseph Myers
2021-06-11 11:25 ` Tom Honermann
2021-06-11 16:28 ` Joseph Myers
2021-06-13 15:35 ` Tom Honermann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cec9e905-9018-5dc2-d5d2-1b68f92d427f@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=tom@honermann.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).