From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: x32-abi@googlegroups.com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: x32 psABI draft version 0.2
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110216202920.B0B7218020E@magilla.sf.frob.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: H. Peter Anvin's message of Wednesday, 16 February 2011 12:04:34 -0800 <4D5C2DD2.10608@zytor.com>
> I'm wondering if we should define a section header flag (sh_flags)
> and/or an ELF header flag (e_flags) for x32 for the people unhappy about
> keying it to the ELF class...
I don't see what's wrong with paying attention to the class. IMHO sh_flags
only makes sense if you might ever mix x32 and normal x86_64 code together
in one link, in which case indeed neither class alone nor anything else
file-global is sufficient. If you don't do that, e_flags seems redundant
when it's already unambiguous from the class, but I suppose it doesn't hurt.
The only other complaint I imagine is the weirdo case of 32-bit systems
that deliver ELFCLASS64 core dump files so they can have a full 4GB of
memory as well as the thread state notes, where perhaps you'd want
something in the core file's headers (e.g. e_flags) to distinguish x32 from
x86_64. But it seems to me the actual core note layouts for x32 ought to
just be the x86_64 ones anyway, so it's hard to see really caring.
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-16 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-16 19:22 H.J. Lu
2011-02-16 20:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-16 20:29 ` Roland McGrath [this message]
2011-02-16 20:35 ` Chris Metcalf
2011-02-16 20:39 ` Andrew Pinski
2011-02-16 20:46 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-16 22:13 ` Chris Metcalf
2011-02-17 8:35 ` Jan Beulich
2011-02-17 12:14 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-17 16:14 ` John Reiser
2011-02-17 17:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2011-02-17 14:29 ` Jakub Jelinek
2011-02-17 15:22 ` Jan Hubicka
2011-02-17 15:30 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-17 15:45 ` Jan Hubicka
2011-02-17 15:49 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-17 16:10 ` Jan Beulich
2011-02-17 17:59 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-18 8:10 ` Jan Beulich
2011-02-18 17:53 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-18 20:32 ` Jan Hubicka
2011-02-21 8:04 ` Jan Beulich
2011-02-17 18:07 ` Jakub Jelinek
2011-02-17 19:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-17 22:50 ` Jan Hubicka
2011-02-17 23:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-17 23:07 ` Jakub Jelinek
2011-02-18 8:49 ` Jan Beulich
2011-02-17 18:14 ` Joseph S. Myers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110216202920.B0B7218020E@magilla.sf.frob.com \
--to=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=x32-abi@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).