hi,
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:26:13AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:45:48PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
After a few round behind the scenes with portmasters (Hi Nick, hi
Martin!),
here is the latest incarnation of swpacontext vs libpthread patch.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:26:13AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:45:48PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
After a few round behind the scenes with portmasters (Hi Nick, hi Martin!),
here is the latest incarnation of swpacontext vs libpthread patch.
If
hi,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:45:48PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
After a few round behind the scenes with portmasters (Hi Nick, hi Martin!),
here is the latest incarnation of swpacontext vs libpthread patch.
If there are no concerns left, I plan to commit within 2 days.
I still
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
I still object to adding _UC_TLSBASE to ports that don't need it. This
can be done entire in userland, so no kernel change should be required
or done.
For now all ports implement swapcontext() by doing a system call. My
patch fixes a bug while
Hi
After a few round behind the scenes with portmasters (Hi Nick, hi Martin!),
here is the latest incarnation of swpacontext vs libpthread patch.
If there are no concerns left, I plan to commit within 2 days.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
Index: distrib/sets/lists/tests/mi
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:45:48PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
After a few round behind the scenes with portmasters (Hi Nick, hi Martin!),
here is the latest incarnation of swpacontext vs libpthread patch.
If there are no concerns left, I plan to commit within 2 days.
I still object to
On Aug 25, 7:00am, m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: [PATCH] swapcontext vs libpthread
| FIX: ./alpha/gen/swapcontext.S: CALL(setcontext)/*
setcontext(ucp) */
|
| That one seems already fine to me. The CALL macro is here to invoke a function
| Am I
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 03:10:51AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
[Call a C function from hppa assembly]
Yes, that loads the address to %1, you'll need to call afterwards.
It seems to be done with bv,n%r0(%r1). I understand bv
is branch-something, %r1 makes sense, but I am not sure about %r0.
On Aug 25, 9:10am, m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: [PATCH] swapcontext vs libpthread
| On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 03:10:51AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| [Call a C function from hppa assembly]
| Yes, that loads the address to %1, you'll need to call afterwards
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24:03AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Why do you say that? pthread_cancelstub.c does exactly this (wrapping
a syscall and calling it) all the time. I don't think we should be
getting the kernel involved with this.
This is not strightforward for setcontext as it is
In article 20120822170050.gj2...@homeworld.netbsd.org,
Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Here is an updated patch for sorting out swapcontext with libpthread,
with documentation and test cases.
I would appreciate feedback on LWP_PRESERVETLS flag to _lwp_create().
This tells
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24:03AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Why do you say that? pthread_cancelstub.c does exactly this (wrapping
a syscall and calling it) all the time. I don't think we should be
getting the kernel involved with this.
Right, I will do that.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 05:00:50PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
but that seems a bad choice: after unsetting _UC_TLSBASE it needs
to call the real setcontext, which means doing a system call from
libpthread. That looks wrong.
Why do you think this would be wrong?
Martin
Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de wrote:
but that seems a bad choice: after unsetting _UC_TLSBASE it needs
to call the real setcontext, which means doing a system call from
libpthread. That looks wrong.
Why do you think this would be wrong?
Do we have any precedent?
--
Emmanuel
14 matches
Mail list logo
