Hello
> > But is this true?
> It is true because a typical implementation of this function has no
> need to clobber registers. For instance, glibc's calls a kernel
> helper this way:
Ah. now I understand, you require to have a virtual memory system (or
similar) that is translating the call in
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 05:09:38PM +, Thomas Klein wrote:
> This might be the initial plan.
> But is this true?
It is true because a typical implementation of this function has no
need to clobber registers. For instance, glibc's calls a kernel
helper this way:
0x00015810 <__aeabi_read_tp+0>:
Hello
> > Dose anyone know the reason why they are not clobbered?
>
> So that they don't have to be saved. This function is supposed to be
> very fast. If you want to use a slow implementation, write an
> assembly wrapper which saves additional registers.
This might be the initial plan.
But is
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:28:36PM +, Thomas Klein wrote:
> Dose anyone know the reason why they are not clobbered?
So that they don't have to be saved. This function is supposed to be
very fast. If you want to use a slow implementation, write an
assembly wrapper which saves additional regis
Hello
To me it looks like, that support for Thread Local Storage exists on ARM
cpu's.
When needed the compiler is going to fetch the base pointer by a
internal __builtin_thread_pointer() call.
This is either a call to __aeabi_read_tp() or a Coprocessor fetch
instruction.
If I'm going to impl
