Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/08/02/09:38:57
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 19:57, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 17:47, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > I still maintain that this is *much* harder than posix conformance.
> > > > > Coping the TLS table will mean binary compatability with every version
> > > > > of windows - and the table size at least has changed quite a bit over
> > > > > the years. Secondly we *do not know* if other .dll's register TLS
> > > > > entries during fork before the cygwin fork code does it's stuff - ie
> > > > > during DLL attaches to the new process.
> > > >
> > > > I just check my information from MSDN to the real world (NT4SP6). The
> > > > pointer at 0x2C is NULL and the TLS array is stored at TEB:0xe10.
> > > > I agree that under this condition a reimplementation of TLS for pthread
> > > > keys is easier.
> > > >
> > > > I apologize for the misunderstanding of your suggestion. I struggled
> > > > somewhere at "had coded to that already".
> > > >
> > > > I do not think that you will need pthread_atfork as long as you store a
> > > > pointer to the TLS array somewhere in the pthread class (or of course the
> > > > whole array can be taken into this).
> > >
> > > I think you still misunderstand my suggestion.
> > >
> > > My suggestion is still simpler:
> > > In pthread_key_create, we add the key to a list to be processed at fork
> > > time - just like we do for mutex's. Before a fork, we save the value for
> > > the *current* thread. After the fork we call the Win32 TLSAlloc call,
> > > and then set the TLS value to the saved value.
> > >
> >
> > The forked child will not inherit the alloced TLS from the parent because
> > this is not implemented by the runtime, but it will still use the
> > inherited keys ?
> > Sounds strange IMHO.
> > How will you make sure that you will get the same slot for your TLS
> > values when TlsAlloc will return random numbers (the first free one) ?
>
> Aargh, things are getting clearer !
>
> You want to temporary store the value in the key list and then allocate a
> new index and store back value.
>
> I think this could be done, but it would require that the pthread_key
> class will get an additional pointer for the value and a new linked list
> with all keys and not only with keys that are associated with an
> destrutor. The destructor list will be obsolete if the destructor is added
> to the key call as well.
^^^^
class
- Raw text -