On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:45:42PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 11.09.2020 23:38, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:07:24PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > >> The current code is confusing, as it attempts to use unimplemented > >> _PTHREAD_GETTCB_EXT() and in one place uses _lwp_getprivate_fast() in > >> other _lwp_getprivate(). This caused my confusion... as I assumed that > >> _lwp_getprivate_fast() is internal and _lwp_getprivate() for public > >> consumption. > > > > _PTHREAD_GETTCB_EXT is a rump hack. There is no _lwp_getprivate_fast. > > There is __lwp_getprivate_fast, which originally wasn't implemented on > > architectures without a fast path (like VAX). Nowadays, all functional > > ports provide either __lwp_getprivate_fast (potentially with a fall-back > > to the system call) or __lwp_gettcb_fast. The difference is whether the > > TLS register is biased or not. > > > > Do you agree with this patch: > > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00278-_rtld_tls_self.txt
No, I don't see the point. Joerg