Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "generaldynam".
Did you mean:
generaldynamic
2012 Jun 21
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
...the old ones around, and then delete the
> old constructors once clang is updated.
Yes, this would probably be the best. To make clang build I just
hacked the constructors in the patch I posted, but they should really
just forward to the new ones.
>> *) Please name the most general model GeneralDynamicTLSMode. Elf's
>> default visibility being called 'default' is already confusing enough
>> :-)
>
> I was thinking that calling it GeneralDynamicTLSMode wouldn't make
> sense for non-ELF targets. My thinking was that DefaultTLSModel would
> mean "use the...
2012 Jun 22
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
...t; old constructors once clang is updated.
>
> Yes, this would probably be the best. To make clang build I just
> hacked the constructors in the patch I posted, but they should really
> just forward to the new ones.
Right. Doing that.
>>> *) Please name the most general model GeneralDynamicTLSMode. Elf's
>>> default visibility being called 'default' is already confusing enough
>>> :-)
>>
>> I was thinking that calling it GeneralDynamicTLSMode wouldn't make
>> sense for non-ELF targets. My thinking was that DefaultTLSModel would
>...
2012 Jun 21
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
...s reviewed on cfe-commits), so my
plan was just to commit them both at once.
If we don't want to do that, I think we should try to add the new
constructors while keeping the old ones around, and then delete the
old constructors once clang is updated.
> *) Please name the most general model GeneralDynamicTLSMode. Elf's
> default visibility being called 'default' is already confusing enough
> :-)
I was thinking that calling it GeneralDynamicTLSMode wouldn't make
sense for non-ELF targets. My thinking was that DefaultTLSModel would
mean "use the default model for the targ...
2012 Jun 20
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
...ew.
Awesome, thanks!
I will try to do a more complete review tonight or tomorrow. For now,
just two quick observations
*) This breaks the clang build, it would be nice to for the first
commit to keep the old API. It can be removed as soon as clang is
updated.
*) Please name the most general model GeneralDynamicTLSMode. Elf's
default visibility being called 'default' is already confusing enough
:-)
I was not sure how hard the first item would be, so I just gave it a
try. The resulting patch is attached.
> Thanks,
> Hans
Cheers,
Rafael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-tex...
2012 Jun 23
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
> OK, let's go with GeneralDynamicTLSModel then.
OK
>> The restrictions should be documented too.
>
> I'm not sure how much detail we should go into here, because the
> restrictions might vary depending on the environment. For example,
> with glibc, it will be possible to use initial-exec in a .so that will...