This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFH: Annotating ELF binaries
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill dot shutemov at linux dot intel dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, libc-help at sourceware dot org, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, devel at lists dot fedoraproject dot org
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:26:20 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFH: Annotating ELF binaries
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <8C6DA8A9-24E4-43DE-8BE9-4A2B3AAC6964@adacore.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Nick Clifton <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
>> This will generalise attributes used by some architectures (ppc, arm), won't it ?
> Yes. Or at least it would if implemented as currently proposed. Maybe a better
> solution would be to only record attributes where they are not already covered by
> some target specific solution.
> Personally I would prefer a nice, generalised solution, but the current target
> specific attributes are mandated by the particular ABIs and so presumably are not
> going to go away.
We have 2 different proposals for program properties. Mine:
has a much smaller scope. New features on upcoming Intel platforms,
like 5-level paging, need this extension for loader decision at run-time.
How should we move forward with program property extensions?