https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devraymondsh at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #12)
> See also PR78875.
That's been closed since you commented.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Schwinge ---
See also PR78875.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
--- Comment #10 from tschwinge at gnu dot org 2006-12-15 19:30 ---
Roland McGrath proposed the following: ``I think it really ought to be
controlled by a -mno-stack-protector-tls or suchlike, for complete flexibility.
Obviously it should default to disabled for -ffreestanding.''
--
--- Comment #9 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2006-11-15
11:01 ---
About not using -fstack-protector, the problem is that it is the default on
ubuntu for instance. That would mean we have to explicitely use
-fno-stack-protector, but only for recent versions of gcc, so we'
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:41 ---
If you use __thread in -ffreestanding it is the same, you don't get emulated
TLS either.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:37 ---
Using %fs:0x28/%gs:0x28 on x86_64-linux resp. %gs:0x14 on i?86-linux is part
of the ABI. -ffreestanding is not supposed to change the ABI, so if you
don't want to use this ABI, just use a different target (x86_64-elf
--- Comment #6 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2006-11-15
10:30 ---
So you are saying that gcc now imposes (whatever the kernel) kernel-land and
user-land to use the same TLS scheme, and now requires people to build a
cross-compiler before building a kernel from another ker
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:23 ---
Linux kernel has this support planned:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/216
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/217
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/218
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/220
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/221
--- Comment #4 from tschwinge at gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:11 ---
Cced to Jakub Jelinek, who originally implemented this functionality. Could
you please comment on this issue?
--
tschwinge at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2006-11-15
09:33 ---
Mmm, if I have to use another target for avoiding my default target's specific
stuff, what is the use of -ffreestanding?
Does that mean that we will have to add a linux-kernel target (as opposed to
linux-u
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 02:50 ---
Seems to me, you should not be using a target that defines
TARGET_THREAD_SSP_OFFSET for -ffreestanding mode. Also IIRC the x86_64 Linux
has a different TLS base register which fixes this issue there.
--
http://
13 matches
Mail list logo
