Re: [PATCH v7] MIPS: Sync elf.h from binutils

[Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>]

* Maciej W. Rozycki:

> Florian, Richard --
>
>> >>> /I think all new additions are supposed to start with EF_ rather than E_.
>> IIUC the existence of E_
>> >>> macros has something to do with the old SVR4 ABI registry maintained by SCO
>> long ago: you
>> > could 
>> >>> only add new EF_ macros once they've been registered with SCO (someone
>> please correct me
>> > if I'm 
>> >>> wrong). Also I think the new comments will best be spelt MIPS32r6/MIPS64r6
>> rather than 
>> >>> -mips32r6/-mips64r6 for consistency with MIPS32r2/MIPS64r2 above. / 
>> >>> After this advice, I changed E_ to EF_ and change the related comments. 
>> >> Are there plans to change binutils to use the EF_* constants? Having 
>> >> separate forms is confusing, especially what “syncing” means if things 
>> >> are not in sync after the fact. 
>> >
>> > No, we did not have this plan to change binutils. 
>> >
>> > So should I change these EF_* to original E_*? 
>> 
>> Please ask the person who requested EF_*.  I think consistency with the
>> binutils usage is desirable.
>
>  Florian: this must have been me.
>
>  Please note that binutils use E_* notation exclusively for architectures 
> and machines (within the respective masks), however we have both E_* and 
> EF_* ones already along with these comments:
>
> /* Legal values for MIPS architecture level.  */
>
> #define EF_MIPS_ARCH_1		0x00000000 /* -mips1 code.  */
> [...]
>
> /* The following are unofficial names and should not be used.  */
>
> #define E_MIPS_ARCH_1		EF_MIPS_ARCH_1
>
> so I find it kind of difficult: to stay consistent, not to break backwards 
> compatibility, and not to add more "unofficial names" that "should not be 
> used", all at a time.
>
>  The EF_* definitions were added on top of preexisting E_* macros back in 
> 1998 by Ulrich Drepper with commit c3966b88eeb ("Update.") and only this:
>
> 	* elf/elf.h: Add lots of new symbols from Irix and Solaris.

My concern was adding EF_* constants to glibc that duplicate E_*
constants that are used in binutils.  I think we should either change
binutils to use the EF_* constants, too, or for these legacy constants,
use the E_* prefix in glibc as well.

Not sure if this a reasonable position, though.

Thanks,
Florian