Re: [mips-tls] A couple of potential changes to the MIPS TLS ABI

[Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 04:04:51PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Michael Uhler wrote:
> >Both points are valid.  But they assume that if we DO have a performance
> >problem, we'll be able to go back and fix that problem with an alternative
> >method (something other than a new ABI).  It was my impression that we were
> >discussing something that was not going to be easy to change once defined.
> 
> That's why I suggested, as a possible compromise, that we require that 
> compilers/linkers mark the rdhwr instruction with a relocation.  That 
> would allow dynamic linkers to make appropriate changes to the code, if 
> appropriate.
> 
> To me, this seems like a very practical way of moving forward with our 
> current implementation, while hedging our bets; what do you and others 
> think?

So we're now close to a consenus.  Given that I'd now accept a kernel patch
that does the right thing.  Which probably means taking Maciej's patch and
polishing to work for the latest kernel.

  Ralf