From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 475653858D20 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:00:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 475653858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1691600444; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oDDC4P6NuxXC0Wce7CzBXlTwmY3nfEBeCpaNX7Oa94w=; b=Xaf5ikVn0dofAg5UNDIqM83+p5YmD1XGEbg6hW4IGIhkdusMO0d/+TbLBw7EnFlAFMBZam aXfotWcKWHxPucBH23oXRrraRhDuiZOyLmKRDtBGApD6oo2wubRBWccO/xCSp+D0L93ilF ju8rvxo6TucPBsxVyXCPep6hAEXnQ0c= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (66.187.233.73 [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-568-cWZcaBziPWGJpDx9h_lUSA-1; Wed, 09 Aug 2023 13:00:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: cWZcaBziPWGJpDx9h_lUSA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 476FB3C11CD4; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:00:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.26]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A92140E96D; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:00:39 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Richard Sandiford , Ying Huang , libc-alpha , yunqiang.su@oss.cipunited.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] MIPS: Sync elf.h from binutils References: <20230807020524.2031213-1-ying.huang@oss.cipunited.com> <87leemerwd.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <4d3d1518-364c-8374-9d3d-86d1afe25d62@oss.cipunited.com> <87r0odeust.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <3d7f6d51-7d7f-cc7c-31b9-744dc06010fa@oss.cipunited.com> <87cyzxfugb.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 19:00:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Maciej W. Rozycki's message of "Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:20:12 +0100 (BST)") Message-ID: <87il9oywuh.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Maciej W. Rozycki: > Florian, Richard -- > >> >>> /I think all new additions are supposed to start with EF_ rather tha= n E_. >> IIUC the existence of E_ >> >>> macros has something to do with the old SVR4 ABI registry maintained= by SCO >> long ago: you >> > could=20 >> >>> only add new EF_ macros once they've been registered with SCO (someo= ne >> please correct me >> > if I'm=20 >> >>> wrong). Also I think the new comments will best be spelt MIPS32r6/MI= PS64r6 >> rather than=20 >> >>> -mips32r6/-mips64r6 for consistency with MIPS32r2/MIPS64r2 above. /= =20 >> >>> After this advice, I changed E_ to EF_ and change the related commen= ts.=20 >> >> Are there plans to change binutils to use the EF_* constants? Having= =20 >> >> separate forms is confusing, especially what =E2=80=9Csyncing=E2=80= =9D means if things=20 >> >> are not in sync after the fact.=20 >> > >> > No, we did not have this plan to change binutils.=20 >> > >> > So should I change these EF_* to original E_*?=20 >>=20 >> 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= =20 > and machines (within the respective masks), however we have both E_* and= =20 > EF_* ones already along with these comments: > > /* Legal values for MIPS architecture level. */ > > #define EF_MIPS_ARCH_1=09=090x00000000 /* -mips1 code. */ > [...] > > /* The following are unofficial names and should not be used. */ > > #define E_MIPS_ARCH_1=09=09EF_MIPS_ARCH_1 > > so I find it kind of difficult: to stay consistent, not to break backward= s=20 > compatibility, and not to add more "unofficial names" that "should not be= =20 > used", all at a time. > > The EF_* definitions were added on top of preexisting E_* macros back in= =20 > 1998 by Ulrich Drepper with commit c3966b88eeb ("Update.") and only this: > > =09* 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