On 7/10/2022 3:25 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 07.10.22 04:57, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 6/10/2022 6:35 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2022 00:13, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>> Will the IDLE TLS size be based on the
>>>> CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_THREAD_LOCAL_STORAGE_SIZE if it is not zero? This effects
>>>> libdl once it supports loading TLS based code.
>>>
>>> Currently, only the actual TLS size is used. We would have to change
>>> _TLS_Get_allocation_size() to use the maximum if it is non-zero.
>>
>> It would be good to get this sorted and in before a push is made on libdl to
>> support TLS. I think the newlib change will make TLS a visible issue in
>> libdl in
>> 6 so it needs to be fixed.
>
> I checked _TLS_Get_allocation_size(). It already returns the maximum size if
> it
> is configured:
>
> if ( _Thread_Maximum_TLS_size != 0 ) {
> if ( allocation_size <= _Thread_Maximum_TLS_size ) {
> _Assert( _Thread_Maximum_TLS_size % CPU_STACK_ALIGNMENT == 0 );
> allocation_size = _Thread_Maximum_TLS_size;
> } else {
> _Internal_error( INTERNAL_ERROR_TOO_LARGE_TLS_SIZE );
> }
> }
>
Thanks. I also checked and found this. It looks good to me.
Is the end of the TLS BSS area the start of the TSL space available for libdl to
use?
Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
