Linux-abi group

[anonymous]

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"