On 25.12.2019 02:57, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 25.12.2019 02:45, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> 1. or1k + riscv define both __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast().
>>>
>>> Is there a point? Unless it is some ABI nit, it
1. or1k + riscv define both __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast().
Is there a point? Unless it is some ABI nit, it looks like a bug to me?
2. Harmonize namespacing __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast().
This is known issue to me abd it bites me from time to time, working for
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 25.12.2019 02:45, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> > 1. or1k + riscv define both __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast().
> >
> > Is there a point? Unless it is some ABI nit, it looks like a bug to me?
> >
> > 2. Harmonize na
On 25.12.2019 02:45, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> 1. or1k + riscv define both __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast().
>
> Is there a point? Unless it is some ABI nit, it looks like a bug to me?
>
> 2. Harmonize namespacing __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast().
>
> This is known