On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> The alignment issue is for threadvars: as long as we have them, we
> need the stack to be aligned, and some constant size. Fortunately,
> threadvars are to be dropped, but it's still not complete yet.
That's also the idea I got fr
The alignment issue is for threadvars: as long as we have them, we
need the stack to be aligned, and some constant size. Fortunately,
threadvars are to be dropped, but it's still not complete yet.
Samuel
At Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:54:17 +0200,
Richard Braun wrote:
> In addition, here you only mention the recylcing problem, not the
> threadvar alignment problem. Or is there no such problem ?
It's been a decade since I wrote the code, I've fotten a bit. I don't
know offhand if there is a problem and I
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:38:02AM +0200, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> The problem has to do with the recycling of stacks. The problem is
> that a thread cannot easily free its own stack when it exits. If it
> frees its stack, it can't free it's kernel thread and vice versa. To
> work around this,
I've add bug-hurd to the cc.
At Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:16:26 +0200,
Richard Braun wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 07:03:06PM +0200, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > But, if it is a generally useful function, I don't see why not to
> > expose it as a general function. Just add _np at the end of the
>
