From postmaster at codesourcery.com Thu Oct 28 19:12:49 2004 From: postmaster at codesourcery.com (postmaster at codesourcery.com) Date: 28 Oct 2004 19:12:49 -0000 Subject: Welcome to mips-tls@codesourcery.com Message-ID: <20041028191249.2066.qmail@mail.codesourcery.com> Welcome to the mips-tls at codesourcery.com mailing list! From mark at codesourcery.com Thu Oct 28 19:15:56 2004 From: mark at codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:15:56 -0700 Subject: New mailing list Message-ID: <4181456C.1070803@codesourcery.com> I've created a mips-tls at codesourcery.com mailing list to discuss the MIPS TLS issues. I expect this will be a pretty short-lived list, but I didn't want to have to keep type everyone's email addresses again and again, and this way we will have an archive of discussion. The following people are subscribed: mlachwani at mvista.com dom at mips.com nigel at mips.com ralf at linux-mips.com dan at codesourcery.com mark at codesourcery.com ica2_ts at csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de It's an open list; send mail to mips-tls-{subscribe,unsubscribe} to add/remove yourself. Yours, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC (916) 791-8304 mark at codesourcery.com From mark at codesourcery.com Thu Oct 28 19:47:52 2004 From: mark at codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:47:52 -0700 Subject: Revised versions of MIPS TLS ABI specification Message-ID: <41814CE8.8060601@codesourcery.com> I've attached a revised version of the specification. As you will see from the revision history at the top, the only changes I've made are the incorrect uses of "$(3)" found by Nigel. I've also added an Open Issues section, where I've attempted to record the issues raised thus far. My priority (well, MontaVista's priority) is to get the basics nailed down so that we can start implementing them ASAP. That means that I would prefer to get consensus about the basics of the specification, even if there are some bits that we want to add in the future. I would like to get the GD/LD bits specified first, so we can start implementing; then we can come back and LE/IE. Thus, I think the following issues are all things that we can decide later, given that at the moment we're talking only about General Dynamic and Local Dynamic. 1. Add |-mxgot| support. We want to do this, for sure, but it does not affect General Dynamic, and it is clear that this can be added to Local Dynamic without impacting the currently specified functionality. 2. The code sequences given for the Local Dynamic Model limit the size of the TLS data area to 2GB. If we decide we want to do this, we can again do it in a way that is forward compatible with the current specification. 3. Should we use Model I or Model II from Drepper's paper? This issue does not arise for Global/Local Dynamic. 4. Does __tls_get_addr need a special calling convention? This issue does not matter until we start doing linker optimizations. Until that time, the compiler can be conservative, and assume this is an ordinary call. The following issue does need resolution: 1. Should we extend the 32K Local Dynamic Model to 64K by using a biased offset? Daniel and I thought this would be more trouble than it's worth; Thiemo thinks otherwise. Are there any other opinions? Once this issue is resolved, what is the next step? Would people like us to publish the draft on our web site? Or should it go on mips-linux.com? We intend to start doing patches to implement this stuff, but it will be more acceptable to the GCC/Binutils/GLIBC maintainers if there is a specification that we can reference. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC (916) 791-8304 mark at codesourcery.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: MIPSTLSABI.txt URL: