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