Re: [Xenomai-core] Pending patches

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> 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 <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
>>>> 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 <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
>>>>
>>>>  src/skins/posix/init.c |   43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>  1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> commit 91ae3da822ca558804bf33be4d164ea4c2667c1b
>>>> Author: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
>>>> 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 <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
>>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> OK, will you or should I apply the do-not-auto-shadow patch?
> 
> Regarding the second one: If the option should continue to be named
> --without-__thread (because of ARM), then we need at the bare minimum a
> documentation of the correlation with dlopen. BTW, any concerns to apply
> the "Mark libs nodlopen" fix?

Maybe we could add the dlopen option which would disable shadowing of
the main thread and unselect __thread ?

-- 
                                                 Gilles.