[Top] [All Lists]

Re: thread-ready ABIs

To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
Subject: Re: thread-ready ABIs
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:56:21 +0100 (MET)
Cc: "H . J . Lu" <>, Machida Hiroyuki <>,, GNU C Library <>,
In-reply-to: <003701c1a25f$8abfc120$0deca8c0@Ulysses>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:

> If anything, assuming that k0 or k1 are sane in
> compiler-generated code is more of a violation
> of the ABI than imposing an optional use of s7.
> Sony's use in libraries is somewhat less intrusive.

 Hmm, it's a glibc/kernel internal implementation detail.  I don't think
this is an ABI violation, as from a program's point of view k0/k1 are
still "undefined -- do not use".

> It's a common technique to bind a static register
> to a global variable.  Linking to libraries with no
> knowledge of this variable breaks nothing, since
> by the ABI, all use of "s" registers requires that
> they be preserved and returned intact to the caller.
> It seems to me to be quite straightforward to apply
> this technique to the thread register.  The *only*
> issue I see is that of performance, and it is by
> no means clear how severe this would be.

 The k0/k1 approach is a performance hit as well.  Possibly a worse one,
as you lose a few cycles unconditionally every exception, while having one
static register less in the code can be dealt with by a compiler in a more
flexible way.  

> In the compiled code that I have examined
> for compiler efficiency in the past, it's pretty
> rare that *all* static registers are actually used.

 Even with one register less there are still eight remaining, indeed.

+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail:, PGP key available        +

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>