This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Policy: Require new dynamic loader names for entirely new ABIs?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, Steve McIntyre <steve dot mcintyre at linaro dot org>
- Cc: "libc-ports at sourceware dot org" <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at gmail dot com>, "Ryan S. Arnold" <ryan dot arnold at linaro dot org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:15:52 -0500
- Subject: Policy: Require new dynamic loader names for entirely new ABIs?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52CDD48A dot 80009 at redhat dot com> <20140113181623 dot GW8293 at linaro dot org> <CA+=Sn1mAkeCU+zt5jOQu5QZhqvuWX4yAvgHe8V6Wq9bpaxD8Tw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 01/17/2014 06:04 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I withdraw my objection to the patch. Though I do feel this
> discussion should have been done on the GCC/glibc list in addition to
> the linaro cross distro list as not every one knows about that list.
I feel your pain here.
I was also frustrated by lack of transparency
when it cam to agreement on ABI details for
ARM hard-float. At the time I was working for
Mentor Graphics and we had to scramble to
implement a solution.
I support it because changing the dynamic loader
name now is less painful than later, we have
users that need it, and a workaround.
The only thing I can say is that we make it
policy that entirely new ABI's should always
use a unique dynamic loader name unless the
submitter can argue otherwise.
That way in the future we never see this