Re: Linux-abi group

[Suprateeka R Hegde via cfe-commits]

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?

--
Supra


On 09-Feb-2016 08:46 AM, H.J. Lu via llvm-commits wrote:

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Joseph Myers  wrote:

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:


I was referring to program properties:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8


This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.

Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
entire GNU project.



gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time.  It isn't appropriate
for any GNU project list.


I find it extremely unlikely that many well-thought-out extensions would
be appropriate for GNU systems using the Linux kernel but not for GNU
systems using Hurd or other kernels - the only such cases would be for
things very closely related to kernel functionality.  There is a strong
presumption that toolchain configuration should apply to all GNU systems
rather than being specific to GNU/Linux without good reason.



Most of extensions aren't Linux kernel specific.  But some extensions
will require kernel support to function properly.



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: Linux-abi group

[Suprateeka R Hegde via cfe-commits]

On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
 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.


For instance, the document "ELF Handling of Thread Local Storage" is a 
technical whitepaper that encourages a way of implementation. It is not 
an official extension.


I meant, use LSB mailing lists for proposals and after implementation, 
update the LSB for all future references. If there is a need to show 
implementation details, it should be a separate document.


My suggestion is to create something for all (entire Linux and not just 
ABI) and make the ABI part of it. So as per your description of LSB, we 
need a namespace something like LSB-Draft where entire Linux community 
can discuss proposals and ABI is part of it.


Also, another namespace within LSB that holds documents showing example 
implementations.


As we see through this discussion, there are many mailing lists and 
groups with lot of overlaps. I think we have to prevent more such 
fragmentation.


These are the thoughts I had. Bottom line is that, a standard is always 
welcome. It is beneficial to all across industry.


--
Supra
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits