From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4120 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2003 09:23:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4101 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2003 09:23:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com) (194.196.100.238) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2003 09:23:07 -0000 Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23]) by d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0U9MvIX049054; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:22:58 +0100 Received: from d12ml016.de.ibm.com (d12ml016_cs0 [9.165.223.56]) by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id h0U9Muav112070; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:22:56 +0100 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Subject: Re: s390 TLS incorporated To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: GNU libc hacker Message-ID: From: "Martin Schwidefsky" Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:23:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 > I've added Martin's TLS stuff to the TLS document. Version 0.18 > includes it. Please check it out. A _lot_ of editing was necessary so > I might have screwed something up. Sorry to hear that. I had hoped to make your life easier by using latex for the writeup. Seems like I was mistaken. I proof-read the s390 stuff. I found some minor things: * on page 41 the ear %r7,%a0 isn't indented correctly * on page 42 a vertical separation line is missing * on page 49 there is some irregular spacing in the code example * on page 64 there is more irregular spacing in the GD->IE transition * and finally on page 79 in the revision history another nice misspelling of my name ;-) I found no problem with the content of the s390 pieces. > And on more thing: it would be good if the code sequences would get > pseudo addresses just for the other archs. Otherwise it's not > necessarily obvious how long an instruction has to be. I thought about using address but decided against them because the four/three code pieces of the examples are supposed to get scheduled by the compiler. They in fact are never consecutive in memory because the literal pool can not directly follow the instructions. As alternative the size of the instructions could be added in a seperate column. blue skies, Martin