I’m trying to have thread-safe local variables in an assembly program.
I’ve searched on the net, but I haven’t found anything simple.
I’m currently using GCC assembler, as the program is a mix of C code and assembly, but the final program will contain code for multiple-platforms / calling conventions.
For now, I’ve declared my variables using the .lcomm pseudo-op.
As I understand it, those variables will be placed in the .bss section.
So I guess they will be shared by all threads.
Is there a way to have a kind of TLS variables directly in assembly, or should I use platform-specific implementations, like pthread or __declspec on Windows?
Hope it’s clear enough. Don’t hesitate to ask if more information is needed.
Thanks to everyone,
EDIT
Here’s the code in question:
.lcomm stack0, 8
.lcomm stack1, 8
.globl _XSRuntime_CallMethod
_XSRuntime_CallMethod:
pushq %rbp
movq %rsp, %rbp
xor %rax, %rax
popq stack0( %rip )
popq stack1( %rip )
callq *%rdi
pushq stack1( %rip )
pushq stack0( %rip )
leave
ret
Basically, it’s used to redirect a call to a C function.
The C prototype is:
extern uint64_t XSRuntime_CallMethod( void ( *m )( void * self, ... ), ... );
It takes a function pointer as first argument, hence the callq *%rdi, as I’m testing this with system V ABI.
The assembly code is very simple, and I’d like to keep it that way, so it can be easily maintainable.
The question is: how to make the stack0 and stack1 variables thread safe.
Not that familiar with assembler so:
Is this how it works, yes??
If so, would it not be easier to just jump to the indirect procedure, rather than calling it? You then don’t need any extra variables to hold the caller flags/return & the indirected procedure returns directly to the caller.
Just a suggestion – while since I did assembler.
If you have to store the caller address somewhere, dec the SP, (enter?), and use the stack frame. Anything else is likely to be thread-unsafe at some point.
Rgds,
Martin
Well, with a TLS maybee not thread-unsafe, but what about any recursive calls? You end up with another stack in the TLS to cover this, so you may as well use the ‘SP’ stack
Martin