From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2792 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Have different definitions of __pthread_tsd_main agree in size Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:50:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20130211215025.GV20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130211003158.GP20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1360568420.23424.521.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20130211112237.GB6181@port70.net> <20130211120816.GC6181@port70.net> <1360587084.9132.83.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20130211130906.GE6181@port70.net> <1360589888.9132.104.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20130211134454.GR20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1360591648.9132.117.camel@eris.loria.fr> <20130211214750.GT20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360619443 22847 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2013 21:50:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:50:43 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2793-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Feb 11 22:51:04 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U51H7-0008SK-BR for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:50:57 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 16211 invoked by uid 550); 11 Feb 2013 21:50:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 16203 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2013 21:50:37 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130211214750.GT20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2792 Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:47:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > With that said, I don't see any reason this behavior is _desirable_ or > beneficial, so I'm fine with changing it and always using __environ > internally. We could even add a visibility attribute on it so that > GOT/PC-relative accesses get used in compilers which support > visibility, instead of the more expensive accesses through the GOT. Actually this is wrong. __environ might be relocated to the main executable via copy relocations, so it can't be accessed GOT-relative. Giving it protected visibility would actually break this, because of bugs in GCC... Rich