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 issue to me abd it bites me from time to time, working for > one CPU and breaking on other as namespacing is inconsistent are different. > > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00210-x86-getprivate.txt >
Wrong patch. The correct one is: http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00211-getprivate-fast.txt > Does it look good? __BEGIN_DECLS and __END_DECLS are probably unneeded > here, but it is just for the sake of consistency among all ports. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
