Displaying 20 results from an estimated 5000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Advice on implementing fast per-thread data"
2008 Feb 05
0
[LLVMdev] Advice on implementing fast per-thread data
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Brian Hurt wrote:
> Another possibility, and I'm not sure how to do this in LLVM, would be to
> sacrifice a register to hold the pointer to the unique per-thread
> structure. This would be worthwhile to me even on the register-starved
> x86-32. I suppose I could also just add a "hidden" (compiler-added and
> -maintained) argument to every function
2008 Feb 06
1
[LLVMdev] Advice on implementing fast per-thread data
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Brian Hurt wrote:
>> Another possibility, and I'm not sure how to do this in LLVM, would be to
>> sacrifice a register to hold the pointer to the unique per-thread
>> structure. This would be worthwhile to me even on the register-starved
>> x86-32. I suppose I could also just add a "hidden"
2012 Jun 14
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger
<joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote:
>> We're trying to figure out if there's a good reason for this, and if
>> we want to mimic that behaviour in LLVM, or if we should just take the
>> tls_model attribute as a starting point, and choose a better model if
>> we can.
>
> On i386, non-PIC code can be used
2010 Jul 07
4
[LLVMdev] LLC Bug x86 with thread local storage
On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> Which one is correct ?
> - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx
> or
> - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx
> or
> - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx
>
I believe this is initial exec and so from:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tls.pdf
it would be movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx
> Otherwise, Is there a
2012 Jun 14
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
> Right, that's a good point.
>
> On i386 Linux, the following code,
>
> static __thread int x[100000];
> int* get_x() { return x; }
>
> compiled with "clang -shared a.c -o a.so" won't be possible do dlopen.
I get exactly the same result with gcc 4.7 with and without
-ftls-model=global-dynamic:
movq %gs:0, %eax
addl $x at ntpoff, %eax
> Rafael, I
2009 Jun 21
4
[LLVMdev] proposal to simplify isel/asmprinter interaction with globals
Hi All,
I'm working on various cleanups and simplifications to the
asmprinters. One thing that is driving me nuts is that the
asmprinters currently "reverse engineer" a lot of information when
printing an operand that isel had when it created it.
I'm specifically talking about all the suffixes generated by isel,
like $non_lazy_ptr, @TLSGD, @NTPOFF, (%rip) etc. These
2010 Jul 08
0
[LLVMdev] LLC Bug x86 with thread local storage
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
>
>> Which one is correct ?
>> - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx
>> or
>> - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx
>> or
>> - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx
>>
>
> I believe this is initial exec and so from:
>
>
2010 Jul 07
0
[LLVMdev] LLC Bug x86 with thread local storage
On 06/22/2010 11:11 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 08:21 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:56 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This bug affects all LLVM versions from 2.6 to trunk :
>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081
>>>
>>> The workaround I found is to
2010 Jun 22
2
[LLVMdev] LLC Bug x86 with thread local storage
On 06/21/2010 08:21 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:56 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This bug affects all LLVM versions from 2.6 to trunk :
>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081
>>
>> The workaround I found is to add this :
>>
>> Index: lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td
>>
1998 May 19
1
Beware of dangerous enviroment (Re: Overflows in minicom)
On Tue, 12 May 1998, Andi Kleen wrote on BUGTRAQ:
> I assumed the libc would ignore NLSPATH when the app runs suid (similar
> like it does with LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc.). If it doesn''t that is a bad bug.
>
> [... clickety click ... ]
>
> At least glibc 2.1 uses __secure_getenv() for NLSPATH. Don''t know about 2.0,
> separate GNU gettext, or libc5.
I have
2006 Sep 08
2
[LLVMdev] build broken on linux/amd64
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp?ndola wrote:
> I am not sure if it is the correct solution, but the attached patch
> fixes the problem.
Your solution is correct, in that it will work and follows with the
current ifdef approach. I applied this patch though, which doesn't use
the ifdefs, hopefully it is more robust:
2015 Feb 27
7
Glibc sources?
All,
Please excuse any ignorance in this e-mail as I am not a RH/CentOS/Fedora user and may
blunder my way through the correct terminology for my request.
I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library for testing with
gethostbyname(). My mission is to show that we are not affected by the latest exploit for
the product we are shipping targeted for RHEL and CentOS.
2012 Apr 25
5
[LLVMdev] Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)
Hi all,
I would like to hear your thoughts on adding support for extending the
IR to allow for explicitly selecting which model to use for
thread-local storage of a variable.
The motivation is to allow Clang to support the "tls_model" variable
attribute [1], as requested in PR9788.
The idea would be to extend the IR to allow an optional TLS-model
argument to the thread_local
2011 Jul 18
2
Problem compiling in extra/xdr
I'm building R 2.13.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, using gcc 4.6.1
and with glibc 2.14.
I get this error:
In file included from xdr.c:61:0:
./rpc/types.h:63:14: error: conflicting types for 'malloc'
make[4]: *** [xdr.o] Error 1
I can make the build proceed some by commenting out the
declaration "extern char *malloc();" in xdr/rpc/types.h,
but then I get a slew of other errors:
2011 Jul 18
2
Problem compiling in extra/xdr
I'm building R 2.13.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, using gcc 4.6.1
and with glibc 2.14.
I get this error:
In file included from xdr.c:61:0:
./rpc/types.h:63:14: error: conflicting types for 'malloc'
make[4]: *** [xdr.o] Error 1
I can make the build proceed some by commenting out the
declaration "extern char *malloc();" in xdr/rpc/types.h,
but then I get a slew of other errors:
2012 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] Use rand_r() instead of non-reentrant thread-unsafe rand() in GetRandomNumber()
Correcting my patch, reg. __thread stuff I'm not very familiar with.
- D.
2012/12/1 Dmitry Mikushin <dmitry at kernelgen.org>
> Agreed, done.
>
> One thing I'm not sure about is this statement in docs:
>
> POSIX.1-2008 marks *rand_r*() as obsolete.
>
> - And... what is the replacement?
>
>
> 2012/12/1 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at
2006 Sep 08
0
[LLVMdev] build broken on linux/amd64
> Please lemme know if it works.
It does. Thanks.
> I don't know what that is :(
I believe that code compiled without -fpic is going into a DSO. This
creates text relocations that are not supported on linux/amd64
(http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf).
> -Chris
Rafael
2006 Jan 05
1
Using gcc4 visibility features
R-devel now makes use of gcc4's visibility features: for an in-depth
account see
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf
(and note there are older versions of that document around).
Consider for example stats.so. On a gcc4 Linux system this has just three
entry points
gannet% nm -g stats.so | grep " T "
00002720 T R_init_stats
0004a544 T _fini
00001f28 T _init
since the
2003 Apr 09
10
[Bug 536] no access to tty on Linux 2.0 and 2.4+libc5
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=536
stuge-openssh-unix-dev at cdy.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|no access to tty on Linux |no access to tty on Linux
|2.0 |2.0 and 2.4+libc5
------- Additional Comments
2012 Dec 01
2
[LLVMdev] Use rand_r() instead of non-reentrant thread-unsafe rand() in GetRandomNumber()
Agreed, done.
One thing I'm not sure about is this statement in docs:
POSIX.1-2008 marks *rand_r*() as obsolete.
- And... what is the replacement?
2012/12/1 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com>
> If we're keeping the state locally now, perhaps we should store it in a
> per-thread variable. I know rand() isn't thread safe to begin with, but it
> seems