From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: GNU property saga
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 17:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1903041706520.5354@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
Hello,
I'll admit that I have lost track of the consensus about GNU properties
and all the discussions last year. But we want to somewhen get this into
the psABI document. I believe there were two points (with subitems) of
contentions:
1) use PT_NOTE vs PT_xxx for program header containing the properties
I believe the consensus was to use a new PT_xxx value
1a) use new SHT_xxx for sections contain such properties
I believe the consensus was to stay with SHT_NOTE, even though that is
squarely against ELF spirit.
2) semantics of individual ranges of the GNU_PROPERTY_xxx value.
Basically the properties are split into three ranges, where each
individual member represents itself a set of 32 members (via an uint32)
representing a feature/property each. The semantics of the higher level
(the three ranges) are a fixed set of logical combinations of input
values:
* there is a range representing the AND of all input values
* there is a range representing the OR of all input values
* there is a range representing something strange (OR_AND), which tries
to capture the notion of difference between "input-unknown" and
"input-known-not-there"
I believe there is consensus on the semantics of the AND and OR range.
Was there ever consensus on the OR_AND thingy? It strikes me as not
really implementing what is wanted, especially in relation to future
extensibility (I'll write a mail about this).
Were there other points of contention, or was that all?
(FWIW, the current textual diff to the psABI document adding GNU
properties is at
https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/merge_requests/1/diffs )
Ciao,
Michael.
next reply other threads:[~2019-03-04 17:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-04 17:25 Michael Matz [this message]
2019-03-04 17:40 ` OR_AND semantics (was: GNU property saga) Michael Matz
2019-03-05 0:48 ` Cary Coutant
2019-03-06 13:57 ` Michael Matz
2019-03-07 6:56 ` Cary Coutant
2019-03-08 3:44 ` H.J. Lu
2019-03-08 6:06 ` Cary Coutant
2019-03-08 6:25 ` Jim Dehnert
2019-03-11 7:34 ` H.J. Lu
2019-03-20 14:51 ` GNU property saga Mark Wielaard
[not found] ` <25adbffa-fc4c-1b01-7949-fbe0dc212f70@arm.com>
2019-05-10 18:37 ` Mark Wielaard
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=alpine.LSU.2.21.1903041706520.5354@wotan.suse.de \
--to=matz@suse.de \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=x86-64-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).