From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:36:22 -0700
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <abaf4de0cf89d7c71b1105f2052ff91d@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <13426df10807100818g491f676fwf5f2256f710f0583@mail.gmail.com>
	<abaf4de0cf89d7c71b1105f2052ff91d@terzarima.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e17b40ea-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>> speaking of which, did Cinap's  fixes for the gs segment make it in so
>> we have thread local storage a la linux now?
>
>
> or did you mean in linuxemu?

yes. linuxemu needed a kernel change IIRC and I was wondering if that was in.
ron