On 25.12.2019 02:57, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 25.12.2019 02:45, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> 1. or1k + riscv define both __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast(). >>> >>> Is there a point? Unless it is some ABI nit, it looks like a bug to me? >>> >>> 2. Harmonize namespacing __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast(). >>> >>> This is known issue to me abd it bites me from time to time, working for >>> one CPU and breaking on other as namespacing is inconsistent are different. >>> >>> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00210-x86-getprivate.txt >>> >> >> Wrong patch. The correct one is: >> >> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00211-getprivate-fast.txt > > There is little reason to use __BEGIN_DECLS/__END_DECLS for static > inline functions. > > Joerg > I know. I can remove it from other fast versions of _lwp_getprivate(). Does it look fine besides that?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature