This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Linux-abi group


H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
<hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
<hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
H.J,

I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists.
This
new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml

The Intro on LSB says:

http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html

And thats what this proposal is intended for.

And we can use the LSB mailing list
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
discussions.

What do you think?

LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
you can use to implement them.  For example:


http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html

lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
extensions before they get implemented.

How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular
product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product.
Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not
enforce implementation details.



That is exactly what Linux ABI group tries to address.  Please see
the Linux gABI extension draft at

https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI

It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa-
tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools.



Intel ABI allows abi for binary compatibility on intel machines - just copy bins no need to target compile.

Linux ABI? linus already suggested this in even 1990's releases: warning: do not share your kernel headers with applications, they might abuse it and anyway software relying on it would break soon (be a waste of time) when new releases released

i just noticed myself the BEST PROTECTION against the need of ABI: is a kernel that has abi inside and offers fast exported features on "well known unix interfaces" to what otherwise would make software "machine dependant, fallible, and short lived"


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]