From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <496F1745.2000401@domain.hid> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:00:21 +0000 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <496F0DBE.5010108@domain.hid> <496F1041.20306@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <496F1041.20306@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Pending patches List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> currently I have the following six patches in my assorted queue >> (git://git.kiszka.org/xenomai.git queue/assorted). All have been posted >> before, I just rebased them since then a few times. Should I repost >> any/all of them (would be no problem), or are some already queued for >> potential merge? >> >> Jan >> >> (...) >> commit a631ab2c531d5e381ba8a0a59bf301a0276d9f99 >> Author: Jan Kiszka >> Date: Thu Jan 15 11:10:24 2009 +0100 >> >> POSIX: Do not auto-shadow main with dlopen enabled >> >> Don't perform auto-shadowing in POSIX skin if we might be loaded via >> dlopen. Otherwise the wrong thread, the undefined dlopen caller, may be >> (re-)shadowed, assigning wrong scheduling settings. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka >> >> src/skins/posix/init.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> commit 91ae3da822ca558804bf33be4d164ea4c2667c1b >> Author: Jan Kiszka >> Date: Thu Jan 15 11:10:24 2009 +0100 >> >> Replace --without-__tread with --enable-dlopen-skins >> >> In practice, you only want to disable __thread support when Xenomai skin >> libraries should be loadable via dlopen. Therefore rename the related >> configure switch accordingly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka >> > > Nack these two ones: one of the gcc bugs I have found on ARM is related > to __thread (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38815). So, > even though I have found a work around for the bug, I am not sure that > it works all the time, so disabling __thread on ARM is safer. Especially > since __thread does not bring any performance improvement over > pthread_(get|set)specific on ARM. Actually, I am not opposed to the first, only to the second. -- Gilles.