On 11-Feb-2016 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
wrote:
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
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
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-
STB_SECONDARY to gABI
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
> wrote:
> > The write-up looks good.
> >
> > Two typos:
> > 1. An instance of "week" instead of "weak"
> > 2. Some text mention "linker" and some other
The write-up looks good.
Two typos:
1. An instance of "week" instead of "weak"
2. Some text mention "linker" and some other mention "link editor".
Question: will this be part of the current gABI draft soon?
--
Supra
> -Original Message-
> From: generic-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:gene
> -Original Message-
> From: generic-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:generic-
> a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lowell, Randy
> Sent: 14 May 2012 07:12 PM
> To: generic-...@googlegroups.com; GCC Development; Binutils; GNU C
> Library; Ansari, Zia
> Subject: RE: Add STB_SECONDARY to gABI
>
How about stating that the behavior of
STB_SECONDARY symbols in areas not specified
by this proposal matches that of STB_WEAK?
For example, we may not want to go into
runtime details when an unresolved-hence-zero-valued
secondary reference (type STT_FUNC) is hit at runtime.
In such instances let
