This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Linux-abi group
- From: Suprateeka R Hegde <hegdesmailbox at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists dot llvm dot org>, cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists dot llvm dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:35:18 +0530
- Subject: Re: Linux-abi group
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOqPzub4Qr95JT9_U9FBtbME4Xb2ZTgqPrN-Umf70vWGbQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <87io1z2e2i dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAMe9rOqxZ6NDTc9pKJRpA--A_+moVNSZXyvZ0mkebx0X+LD=_g at mail dot gmail dot com> <87egcn2diz dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAMe9rOr6jj0ax0B=9dFpuMYCu=HJaf9a3g2-NGnvNV2ZWTqwXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1602082307130 dot 18645 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMe9rOqoABu=bD5tgeBQsQXWZmhd5CHSZuwfobg8ezoCmCHNGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <56BC61F0 dot 3010507 at gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqUbo_hFin-yf7T0S43qcY=Jn8g4R7PqrS0OGVwhx4qRw at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: hegdesmailbox at gmail dot com
On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
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:
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
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:
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
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
These are the thoughts I had. Bottom line is that, a standard is always
welcome. It is beneficial to all across industry.