public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

             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).