On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, LIU Hao wrote:
在 2024-12-06 07:20, Martin Storsjö 写道:
Thanks - so I guess this patch could be pushed on its own, even if we don't
yet figure out a good way forward with the other one.
This patch is OK for me. (because it's simple; not because it's perfect.)
Ok, I pushed
在 2024-12-06 07:20, Martin Storsjö 写道:
Thanks - so I guess this patch could be pushed on its own, even if we don't yet figure out a good
way forward with the other one.
This patch is OK for me. (because it's simple; not because it's perfect.)
If we could force libstdc++ to prefer providing it
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, LIU Hao wrote:
在 2024-12-05 20:38, Martin Storsjö 写道:
When the libstdc++/libsupc++ implementation of __cxa_thread_atexit is
used in conjunction with emulated TLS, both emutls and libsupc++
register destructors to be executed via pthread_key_create; one for
freeing the per-th
在 2024-12-05 20:38, Martin Storsjö 写道:
When the libstdc++/libsupc++ implementation of __cxa_thread_atexit is
used in conjunction with emulated TLS, both emutls and libsupc++
register destructors to be executed via pthread_key_create; one for
freeing the per-thread memory allocated for the TLS obj
According to docs, the order is unspecified, but running them in
reverse order would be more logical.
When libstdc++ is built, it can either provide its own implementation
of __cxa_thread_atexit or use one from the host environment.
When libstdc++ is cross compiled, the configure script doesn't d
