From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21931 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2011 12:14:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 21901 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2011 12:14:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_IB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.216.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:14:08 +0000 Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so2303935qwa.0 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:14:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.74.13 with SMTP id s13mr2452260qaj.149.1297944845730; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.61.18 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:14:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D5CEBDE02000078000325A2@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <4D5C2DD2.10608@zytor.com> <4D5CEBDE02000078000325A2@vpn.id2.novell.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: x32 psABI draft version 0.2 From: "H.J. Lu" To: Jan Beulich Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , GCC Development , x32-abi@googlegroups.com, Binutils , GNU C Library Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 16.02.11 at 21:04, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: >> On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I updated =A0x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path >>> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian, >>> Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32 psABI is >>> available from: >>> >>> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/home >>> >> >> 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... > > Thanks for supporting this! I am not convinced. > Besides that I also wonder why all the 64-bit relocations get > marked as LP64-only. It is clear that some of them can be useful > in ILP32 as well, and there's no reason to preclude future uses > even if currently no-one can imagine any. We can revisit them when someone finds a use for them. > Furthermore, it seems questionable to continue to require rela > relocations when for all normal ones (leaving aside the 8- and 16- > bit ones) the addend can fit in the relocated field. Rela is much nicer to work with. > Finally, shouldn't R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT and R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT Fixed in git. > also have a field specifier of wordclass rather than word64 (though > 'wordclass' by itself would probably be wrong if the tying of the ABI > to the ELF class was eliminated)? And how about R_X86_64_*TP*64 > and R_X86_64_TLSDESC? Those are 64bits due to the way the code sequence generated by gcc. --=20 H.J.