Bug 1573179 Comment 6 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
(In reply to Andy Wingo [:wingo] from comment #5)
> But, it may not be necessary: if the callee has the same WasmTlsReg there's no need to ensure there's a restoration thunk, so we could add a dynamic check to skip the thunking.

Yes, that was my aim: performance, not correctness.  And 99% of the time (and probably 100% for any given branch-predictable callsite) TLS won't be changing.

> Certainly :) I will take a look at your in-progress patch today.
Revision 1 by
on 
(In reply to Andy Wingo [:wingo] from comment #5)
> But, it may not be necessary: if the callee has the same WasmTlsReg there's no need to ensure there's a restoration thunk, so we could add a dynamic check to skip the thunking.

Yes, that was my aim: performance, not correctness.  And 99% of the time (and probably 100% for any given branch-predictable callsite) TLS won't be changing.

> Certainly :) I will take a look at your in-progress patch today.

Thanks!

Back to Bug 1573179 Comment 6