From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 7A5A839AE801; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:15:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7A5A839AE801 From: "carlos at redhat dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug dynamic-link/27924] ld.so: Support DT_RELR relative relocation format Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:15:51 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: dynamic-link X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: carlos at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Glibc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:15:51 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27924 --- Comment #6 from Carlos O'Donell --- (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #5) > (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #3) > > The proposal to the ABI seems stalled and probably needs to be pushed a= gain > > to the gABI group with the updated wording for review again? The altern= ative > > is not to extend the gABI but consider this a GNU ABI extension. If Goo= gle > > has interest in moving this forward someone needs to be a change champi= on > > here and work with upstream. > >=20 > > Objectively I have no problem with SHT_RELR, but it should be documente= d in > > our ABI docs *somewhere* so we have a concrete place to discuss future > > changes and accept those changes. > >=20 > > Today the gABI list is a "consensus" group with Cary Coutant documenting > > that consensus. The GNU ABI is implemented by the GNU Toolchain, so the= re is > > probably some consensus there that needs forming, but we can do that to= o. >=20 > http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/contents.html is unmaintained a= nd > receives no update since circa 2016. So SHT_RELR is wording adopted by ma= ny > groups, including Solaris which has many differences with the GNU ABI. No update since 2016 does not mean unmaintained. Please speak with Cary Cou= tant to determine the current status. If Solaris has adopted SHT_RELR I assume they put it into their OS-specific ABI? > If https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/9OO5vhxb00Y "Ongoing > Maintenance of the gABI" will take some time, perhaps the wording can be > added to System V Application Binary Interface Linux Extensions temporari= ly? It could, but why temporary? If there are objections at the ELF gABI level,= and there might be, then we can just look at a Linux extension [1]. We would submit the constants in the scope of the OS-specific extensions, a= nd then binaries with the old ABI would not match, but I don't know if that is= an issue you want to address? [1] Just for the sake of others reading, the generic Linux ABI (GNU ABI) is maintained by HJ with input from various toolchain developers: https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/Linux-ABI --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=