Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

i#4501: Undo some changes to loader_shared.c made by 9293e7ae7. #6951

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

egrimley-arm
Copy link
Contributor

@egrimley-arm egrimley-arm commented Aug 29, 2024

The purpose of 9293e7a was to add TLS support for Windows, but it broke the use of multiple clients. This patch brings back the previous code for non-Windows, so on Unix all the loading happens later, in loader_init_epilogue().

Also add a test of two clients.

Unfortunately this patch undoes the unification of the Unix and Windows loaders that happened with 9293e7a. It would be good to find a way of unifying the Unix and Windows loaders that does not break the use of multiple clients (#6963).

The purpose of 9293e7a was to add TLS support for Windows,
but it broke the use of multiple clients. This patch brings
back the previous code for non-Windows and adds a test of
two clients.

It was also necessary to revert part of 76bfa29.
core/unix/loader.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
core/loader_shared.c Show resolved Hide resolved
core/loader_shared.c Show resolved Hide resolved
Change-Id: I17381ea52b640dc205b275b7ca4ab2b73b63675d
The purpose of 9293e7a was to add TLS support for Windows,
but it broke the use of multiple clients. This patch brings
back the previous code for non-Windows, so on Unix all the
loading happens later, in loader_init_epilogue().

Also add a test of two clients.

Unfortunately this patch undoes the unification of the Unix
and Windows loaders that happened with 9293e7a. It would
be good to find a way of unifying the Unix and Windows loaders
that does not break the use of multiple clients (#6963).

Change-Id: I6bd63de90a1d9eebe50b04ac6117cc3522ae7df7
@egrimley-arm
Copy link
Contributor Author

The problem was solved a different way: #6976

@egrimley-arm egrimley-arm deleted the i4501-two-clients branch September 12, 2024 16:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants