--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-26 00:31 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> So could you please point me to one?
Something like:
__thread int i;
int main(void)
{
return i;
}
Though it might need also another thread to be started too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-07-24 08:13 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Andy, please show me a testcase that fails on 32bit.
>
> Any old TLS testcase will do. Also I am not Andy but Andrew.
So could you please point me to one?
--
http
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-24 08:09 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Andy, please show me a testcase that fails on 32bit.
Any old TLS testcase will do. Also I am not Andy but Andrew.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28456
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-07-24 08:06 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> No, it is still the same bug in glibc even though it is a different target and
> 32bit vs 64bit.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28351 ***
Andy, please show me a testcase that fa
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-23 23:56 ---
No, it is still the same bug in glibc even though it is a different target and
32bit vs 64bit.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28351 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-07-23 21:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Because less people test glibc staticly. Anyways this is a glibc bug which
> has
> since been fixed and it is the same problem as mentioned in PR 28351 so
> closing
> as a dup of that bug.
Negati
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-22 22:28 ---
Because less people test glibc staticly. Anyways this is a glibc bug which has
since been fixed and it is the same problem as mentioned in PR 28351 so closing
as a dup of that bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-07-22 12:55 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think this is a bug in your glibc version where static linking glibc causes
> TLS to be broken.
Andrew,
how can I find out whether this happens, and why should it happen
with static linking only?
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-21 22:50 ---
I think this is a bug in your glibc version where static linking glibc causes
TLS to be broken.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28456
