In article <20120912072608.gr10...@homeworld.netbsd.org>, Emmanuel Dreyfus <m...@netbsd.org> wrote: >On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20:47PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote: >> _UC_TLSBASE is an MD thing. > >iMO it is a MI interface with a MD implementation. It just says whether >TLS is part of struct mcontext or not. The MD code can handle that in >the kernel or in userland if that is possible. > >> Defining it unconditionally bloats things. >> For instance, if _UC_TLSBASE isn't defined, pthread_setcontext doesn't >> need to do anything except call setcontext. That's a win. > >But do we have any port that are in this situation? I understand >they all change the TLS pointer with setcontext.
This is orthogonal. I believe that in the discussion we had in core we decided to not define _UC_TLSBASE unconditionally, and that ports should define it as needed. If in the end all ports define _UC_TLSBASE, then the #ifdef code in libpthread can be removed, but even in that case I don't see the benefit. christos
