Rafael Espíndola
2012-Jun-12 16:45 UTC
[LLVMdev] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
> I managed to dig out the original thread for GCC: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-09/msg00668.html > > It doesn't give a rationale for the case we're discussing, though :/ > > My intuition still tells me that it would be good to separate the > default and globaldynamic cases to > > 1) Respect the user's request: if the user went through the trouble of > specifying __attribute__((tls_model("globaldynamic"))), we should > assume there's a reason and give him what he wants, even if we think > the linker is going to optimize it > 2) To match GCC's behavior. > > I don't have any more compelling reasons than those, and I don't feel > super strongly about this, so I'm willing to give in if others > disagree with me :)I kind of agree with the intuition, but If you don't mind I would probably ask for something stronger before changing the IL. If we do find a case where for some reason the compiler cannot optimize the model, adding a 'default' to the IL should be easy. Duncan, you know the gcc internals, any thoughts?> Thanks, > HansCheers, Rafael
Duncan Sands
2012-Jun-12 20:26 UTC
[LLVMdev] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
Hi Rafael,> I kind of agree with the intuition, but If you don't mind I would > probably ask for something stronger before changing the IL. If we do > find a case where for some reason the compiler cannot optimize the > model, adding a 'default' to the IL should be easy. > > Duncan, you know the gcc internals, any thoughts?I don't know anything about TLS stuff. Maybe best to ask on the gcc mailing list why they do things this way? Ciao, Duncan.
Hans Wennborg
2012-Jun-13 10:05 UTC
[LLVMdev] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:>> I kind of agree with the intuition, but If you don't mind I would >> probably ask for something stronger before changing the IL. If we do >> find a case where for some reason the compiler cannot optimize the >> model, adding a 'default' to the IL should be easy. >> >> Duncan, you know the gcc internals, any thoughts? > > > I don't know anything about TLS stuff. Maybe best to ask on the gcc mailing > list why they do things this way?I sent an email to gcc-help: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2012-06/msg00116.html Let's see if that brings any more info. Thanks, Hans
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [LLVMdev] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
- [LLVMdev] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
- [LLVMdev] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
- [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
- [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)