Linux-abi group

Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu]

Hi,

I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:

https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi

I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
I will propose some new extensions soon.


-- 
H.J.

Re: Linux-abi group

[Florian Weimer]

* H. J. Lu:

> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>
> I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
> I will propose some new extensions soon.

Why can't you use the existing C++ ABI list?  Is there no overlap at
all?

Florian

Re: Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>>
>> I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
>> I will propose some new extensions soon.
>
> Why can't you use the existing C++ ABI list?  Is there no overlap at
> all?
>
:
I wasn't referring to empty class

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00057.html

I was referring to program properties:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8


-- 
H.J.

Re: Linux-abi group

[Florian Weimer]

* H. J. Lu:

> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>> * H. J. Lu:
>>
>>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>>>
>>> I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
>>> I will propose some new extensions soon.
>>
>> Why can't you use the existing C++ ABI list?  Is there no overlap at
>> all?
>>
> :
> I wasn't referring to empty class
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00057.html

But still there is going to be some overlap?

> I was referring to program properties:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8

This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.

Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
entire GNU project.

Florian

Re: Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>>> * H. J. Lu:
>>>
>>>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>>>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>>>>
>>>> I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
>>>> I will propose some new extensions soon.
>>>
>>> Why can't you use the existing C++ ABI list?  Is there no overlap at
>>> all?
>>>
>> :
>> I wasn't referring to empty class
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00057.html
>
> But still there is going to be some overlap?

I was told that it didn't belong to C++ ABI.  Please free feel to
raise the this issue with C++ ABI group.

>> I was referring to program properties:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
>
> This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
>
> Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
> entire GNU project.
>

gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time.  It isn't appropriate
for any GNU project list.


-- 
H.J.

Re: Linux-abi group

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:

> >> I was referring to program properties:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
> >
> > This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
> >
> > Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
> > entire GNU project.
> >
> 
> gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
> Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
> like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time.  It isn't appropriate
> for any GNU project list.

I find it extremely unlikely that many well-thought-out extensions would 
be appropriate for GNU systems using the Linux kernel but not for GNU 
systems using Hurd or other kernels - the only such cases would be for 
things very closely related to kernel functionality.  There is a strong 
presumption that toolchain configuration should apply to all GNU systems 
rather than being specific to GNU/Linux without good reason.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> >> I was referring to program properties:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
>> >
>> > This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
>> >
>> > Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
>> > entire GNU project.
>> >
>>
>> gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
>> Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
>> like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time.  It isn't appropriate
>> for any GNU project list.
>
> I find it extremely unlikely that many well-thought-out extensions would
> be appropriate for GNU systems using the Linux kernel but not for GNU
> systems using Hurd or other kernels - the only such cases would be for
> things very closely related to kernel functionality.  There is a strong
> presumption that toolchain configuration should apply to all GNU systems
> rather than being specific to GNU/Linux without good reason.
>

Most of extensions aren't Linux kernel specific.  But some extensions
will require kernel support to function properly.


-- 
H.J.

Re: Linux-abi group

[Suprateeka R Hegde]

H.J,

I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. 
This new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all 
might be put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml

The Intro on LSB says: 
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html

And thats what this proposal is intended for.

And we can use the LSB mailing list 
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all 
discussions.

What do you think?

--
Supra


On 09-Feb-2016 08:46 AM, H.J. Lu via llvm-commits wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>>>> I was referring to program properties:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
>>>>
>>>> This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
>>>>
>>>> Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
>>>> entire GNU project.
>>>>
>>>
>>> gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
>>> Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
>>> like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time.  It isn't appropriate
>>> for any GNU project list.
>>
>> I find it extremely unlikely that many well-thought-out extensions would
>> be appropriate for GNU systems using the Linux kernel but not for GNU
>> systems using Hurd or other kernels - the only such cases would be for
>> things very closely related to kernel functionality.  There is a strong
>> presumption that toolchain configuration should apply to all GNU systems
>> rather than being specific to GNU/Linux without good reason.
>>
>
> Most of extensions aren't Linux kernel specific.  But some extensions
> will require kernel support to function properly.
>
>

Re: Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
<hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> H.J,
>
> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. This
> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
>
> The Intro on LSB says:
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html
>
> And thats what this proposal is intended for.
>
> And we can use the LSB mailing list
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
> discussions.
>
> What do you think?
>

LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
you can use to implement them.  For example:

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html

lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
extensions before they get implemented.

-- 
H.J.

Re: Linux-abi group

[Suprateeka R Hegde]

On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
> <hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> H.J,
>>
>> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. This
>> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
>> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
>>
>> The Intro on LSB says:
>> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html
>>
>> And thats what this proposal is intended for.
>>
>> And we can use the LSB mailing list
>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
>> discussions.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
> you can use to implement them.  For example:
>
> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html
>
> lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
> But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
> extensions before they get implemented.

How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular 
product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product. 
Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not 
enforce implementation details.

For instance, the document "ELF Handling of Thread Local Storage" is a 
technical whitepaper that encourages a way of implementation. It is not 
an official extension.

I meant, use LSB mailing lists for proposals and after implementation, 
update the LSB for all future references. If there is a need to show 
implementation details, it should be a separate document.

My suggestion is to create something for all (entire Linux and not just 
ABI) and make the ABI part of it. So as per your description of LSB, we 
need a namespace something like LSB-Draft where entire Linux community 
can discuss proposals and ABI is part of it.

Also, another namespace within LSB that holds documents showing example 
implementations.

As we see through this discussion, there are many mailing lists and 
groups with lot of overlaps. I think we have to prevent more such 
fragmentation.

These are the thoughts I had. Bottom line is that, a standard is always 
welcome. It is beneficial to all across industry.

--
Supra

Re: Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
<hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
>> <hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> H.J,
>>>
>>> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists.
>>> This
>>> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
>>> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
>>>
>>> The Intro on LSB says:
>>>
>>> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html
>>>
>>> And thats what this proposal is intended for.
>>>
>>> And we can use the LSB mailing list
>>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>
>> LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
>> you can use to implement them.  For example:
>>
>>
>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html
>>
>> lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
>> But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
>> extensions before they get implemented.
>
>
> How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular
> product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product.
> Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not
> enforce implementation details.
>
>

That is exactly what Linux ABI group tries to address.  Please see
the Linux gABI extension draft at

https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI

It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa-
tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools.


-- 
H.J.

Re: Linux-abi group

[anonymous]

H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
> <hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
>>> <hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> H.J,
>>>>
>>>> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists.
>>>> This
>>>> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
>>>> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
>>>>
>>>> The Intro on LSB says:
>>>>
>>>> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html
>>>>
>>>> And thats what this proposal is intended for.
>>>>
>>>> And we can use the LSB mailing list
>>>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
>>>> discussions.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>> LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
>>> you can use to implement them.  For example:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html
>>>
>>> lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
>>> But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
>>> extensions before they get implemented.
>>
>> How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular
>> product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product.
>> Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not
>> enforce implementation details.
>>
>>
> 
> That is exactly what Linux ABI group tries to address.  Please see
> the Linux gABI extension draft at
> 
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI
> 
> It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa-
> tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools.
> 
> 

Intel ABI allows abi for binary compatibility on intel machines - just 
copy bins no need to target compile.

Linux ABI?  linus already suggested this in even 1990's releases: 
warning: do not share your kernel headers with applications, they might 
abuse it and anyway software relying on it would break soon (be a waste 
of time) when new releases released

i just noticed myself the BEST PROTECTION against the need of ABI: is a 
kernel that has abi inside and offers fast exported features on "well 
known unix interfaces" to what otherwise would make software "machine 
dependant, fallible, and short lived"

Re: gnu-gabi group (Was: Re: Linux-abi group)

[Suprateeka R Hegde]

On 11-Feb-2016 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
> <hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
>>> <hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> H.J,
>>>>
>>>> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists.
>>>> This
>>>> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
>>>> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
>>>>
>>>> The Intro on LSB says:
>>>>
>>>> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html
>>>>
>>>> And thats what this proposal is intended for.
>>>>
>>>> And we can use the LSB mailing list
>>>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
>>>> discussions.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>
>>> LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
>>> you can use to implement them.  For example:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html
>>>
>>> lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
>>> But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
>>> extensions before they get implemented.
>>
>>
>> How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular
>> product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product.
>> Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not
>> enforce implementation details.
>>
>>
>
> That is exactly what Linux ABI group tries to address.  Please see
> the Linux gABI extension draft at
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI
>
> It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa-
> tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools.

(I suddenly see the subject changed to gnu-gabi from linux-abi. If I 
missed any e-mail in the transition, my apologies.)

Why should it re-describe or repeat what already exists in LSB. For 
instance, the Exception Handling Framework? 
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/ehframechpt.html

I understand that the forum (an exclusive gABI discussion group) is not 
there in LSB. That matches with what you have created. But the resulting 
standards document is already there in LSB.

Am I missing anything very obvious?

On 11-Feb-2016 10:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I think that none of the ABI extensions in question are anything to do
> with Linux, the kernel.  Rather, they are ABI extensions for userspace in
> the GNU system, which apply the same under multiple kernels (but some of
> them may well not apply to Android systems using the Linux kernel, for
> example, if the Bionic C library and dynamic linker lack the relevant
> features).  Thus it would be more appropriate for a mailing list to be
> hosted on sourceware or Savannah, and for any resulting documents to refer
> to GNU, not to Linux.

These points look very logical. Even I would like to agree to it, but 
after clearing some of the conflicting points I have.

1. The LinuxFoundation.Org and hence the "Linux" Standard Base has been 
created for "Linux, the platform" and not "Linux, the kernel". Am I 
right? If I am right, why not make ourse;ves part of the foundation and 
hence standards? Its one big central place.

2. As I know, and also as H.J. mentioned, some of the extensions may 
involve the kernel eventually. Those may not be immediately under 
discussion in this thread. Even I have a couple of things (regarding 
non-volatile memory or special memory area) and it may involves kernel. 
But these may not be yet mature for a wider-audience discussion. But 
targeted for "Linux, the platform".

On 11-Feb-2016 11:50 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.

The x32, x86-64, IA-64, IA-32, SYS-V gABI, are all on google groups. Am 
I right? If I am right, then this Linux-ABI also looks good uder google 
groups I think. But this can be anything. Not of a major concern I believe.

Based on my understanding, to summarize: Discussions or groups can be 
anywhere. But the resulting standards/documents should be part of LSB. 
Is there any conflict?

--
Supra

Re: gnu-gabi group (Was: Re: Linux-abi group)

[Joseph Myers]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016, Suprateeka R Hegde wrote:

> On 11-Feb-2016 10:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > I think that none of the ABI extensions in question are anything to do
> > with Linux, the kernel.  Rather, they are ABI extensions for userspace in
> > the GNU system, which apply the same under multiple kernels (but some of
> > them may well not apply to Android systems using the Linux kernel, for
> > example, if the Bionic C library and dynamic linker lack the relevant
> > features).  Thus it would be more appropriate for a mailing list to be
> > hosted on sourceware or Savannah, and for any resulting documents to refer
> > to GNU, not to Linux.
> 
> These points look very logical. Even I would like to agree to it, but after
> clearing some of the conflicting points I have.
> 
> 1. The LinuxFoundation.Org and hence the "Linux" Standard Base has been
> created for "Linux, the platform" and not "Linux, the kernel". Am I right? If
> I am right, why not make ourse;ves part of the foundation and hence standards?
> Its one big central place.

The extensions in question are generally part of GNU, the platform 
(including GNU with other kernels), not just GNU/Linux.

Note that for example ELFOSABI_LINUX was renamed to ELFOSABI_GNU in the 
gABI some time ago to reflect this.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Linux-abi group

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Suprateeka R Hegde wrote:

> H.J,
> 
> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. This new
> discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be put
> under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
> 
> The Intro on LSB says:
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html
> 
> And thats what this proposal is intended for.
> 
> And we can use the LSB mailing list
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
> discussions.
> 
> What do you think?

I think that none of the ABI extensions in question are anything to do 
with Linux, the kernel.  Rather, they are ABI extensions for userspace in 
the GNU system, which apply the same under multiple kernels (but some of 
them may well not apply to Android systems using the Linux kernel, for 
example, if the Bionic C library and dynamic linker lack the relevant 
features).  Thus it would be more appropriate for a mailing list to be 
hosted on sourceware or Savannah, and for any resulting documents to refer 
to GNU, not to Linux.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Mark Wielaard]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 04:38:28PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I think that none of the ABI extensions in question are anything to do 
> with Linux, the kernel.  Rather, they are ABI extensions for userspace in 
> the GNU system, which apply the same under multiple kernels (but some of 
> them may well not apply to Android systems using the Linux kernel, for 
> example, if the Bionic C library and dynamic linker lack the relevant 
> features).  Thus it would be more appropriate for a mailing list to be 
> hosted on sourceware or Savannah, and for any resulting documents to refer 
> to GNU, not to Linux.

I like that idea. For elfutils we try to follow the various GNU gabi,
ELF and DWARF extensions. Most extensions are independent of the linux
kernel, and also work with kfreebsd or hurd (both of which have a Debian
elfutils port). Having a central place to ask for clarifications and
document these extensions would be great. We do maintain a list of GNU
DWARF extensions: https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/DwarfExtensions
But don't have a good list of GNU gabi/ELF extensions.
If we could ask overseers to setup a new group/list gnu-gabi on sourceware
where binutils, gcc, gdb, glibc and other interested parties could join
to maintain these extensions and ask for clarifications that would be
wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Jose E. Marchesi]

    On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 04:38:28PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
    > I think that none of the ABI extensions in question are anything to do 
    > with Linux, the kernel.  Rather, they are ABI extensions for userspace in 
    > the GNU system, which apply the same under multiple kernels (but some of 
    > them may well not apply to Android systems using the Linux kernel, for 
    > example, if the Bionic C library and dynamic linker lack the relevant 
    > features).  Thus it would be more appropriate for a mailing list to be 
    > hosted on sourceware or Savannah, and for any resulting documents to refer 
    > to GNU, not to Linux.
    
    I like that idea. For elfutils we try to follow the various GNU gabi,
    ELF and DWARF extensions. Most extensions are independent of the linux
    kernel, and also work with kfreebsd or hurd (both of which have a Debian
    elfutils port). Having a central place to ask for clarifications and
    document these extensions would be great. We do maintain a list of GNU
    DWARF extensions: https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/DwarfExtensions
    But don't have a good list of GNU gabi/ELF extensions.
    If we could ask overseers to setup a new group/list gnu-gabi on sourceware
    where binutils, gcc, gdb, glibc and other interested parties could join
    to maintain these extensions and ask for clarifications that would be
    wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
    to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
    Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.

I agree.  gnu-gabi seems more appropriate than linux-abi.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> If we could ask overseers to setup a new group/list gnu-gabi on 
> sourceware where binutils, gcc, gdb, glibc and other interested parties 
> could join to maintain these extensions and ask for clarifications that 
> would be wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, 
> they seem to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access 
> archives. Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be 
> better IMHO.

Agreed.


Ciao,
Michael.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Pedro Alves]

On 02/11/2016 06:20 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> If we could ask overseers to setup a new group/list gnu-gabi on sourceware
> where binutils, gcc, gdb, glibc and other interested parties could join
> to maintain these extensions and ask for clarifications that would be
> wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.

+1

-- 
Pedro Alves

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 12, 2016, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 02/11/2016 06:20 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> If we could ask overseers to setup a new group/list gnu-gabi on sourceware
>> where binutils, gcc, gdb, glibc and other interested parties could join
>> to maintain these extensions and ask for clarifications that would be
>> wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
>> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
>> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.

> +1

+1

Since it's GNU tools we're talking about, we'd better use a medium that
we've all already agreed to use, than one that a number of us objects
to.  I, for one, have closed my Google account several Valentine's Days
ago, for privacy reasons, and this makes the archives of lists hidden
there unusable for me.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: gnu-gabi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2016, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
>>> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
>>> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.
>
>> +1
>
> +1
>
> Since it's GNU tools we're talking about, we'd better use a medium that
> we've all already agreed to use, than one that a number of us objects
> to.  I, for one, have closed my Google account several Valentine's Days
> ago, for privacy reasons, and this makes the archives of lists hidden
> there unusable for me.

Please don't spread false information.  Anyone can subscribe Linux-ABI
group and its archive is to open to everyone.  You don't need a gmail account
for any of those.  There are quite a few non-gmail users.  You don't have
to take my word for it.  I can add your email to Linux-ABI group and you
can check it out yourself :-).

-- 
H.J.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Szabolcs Nagy]

On 15/02/16 16:03, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2016, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
>>>> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
>>>> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.
>>
>>> +1
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Since it's GNU tools we're talking about, we'd better use a medium that
>> we've all already agreed to use, than one that a number of us objects
>> to.  I, for one, have closed my Google account several Valentine's Days
>> ago, for privacy reasons, and this makes the archives of lists hidden
>> there unusable for me.
> 
> Please don't spread false information.  Anyone can subscribe Linux-ABI
> group and its archive is to open to everyone.  You don't need a gmail account
> for any of those.  There are quite a few non-gmail users.  You don't have
> to take my word for it.  I can add your email to Linux-ABI group and you
> can check it out yourself :-).
> 

you as a group admin can do that, others cannot join
without creating a account at google (which requires
the acceptance of the google tos etc).

you also have censorship rights over others.

even if you add users to the list they cannot access
the archive through standard http or https, they need
to allow google to execute javascript code on their
machine. (so wget does not work).

and the url through which you visit a post is not a
reliable permanent link so linking to posts is hard.

i think google groups is not an acceptable forum for
discussing open standards publicly.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2739 bytes --]

On 15 Feb 2016 16:18, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 15/02/16 16:03, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 12, 2016, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>> wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
> >>>> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
> >>>> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Since it's GNU tools we're talking about, we'd better use a medium that
> >> we've all already agreed to use, than one that a number of us objects
> >> to.  I, for one, have closed my Google account several Valentine's Days
> >> ago, for privacy reasons, and this makes the archives of lists hidden
> >> there unusable for me.
> > 
> > Please don't spread false information.  Anyone can subscribe Linux-ABI
> > group and its archive is to open to everyone.  You don't need a gmail account
> > for any of those.  There are quite a few non-gmail users.  You don't have
> > to take my word for it.  I can add your email to Linux-ABI group and you
> > can check it out yourself :-).
> 
> you as a group admin can do that, others cannot join
> without creating a account at google (which requires
> the acceptance of the google tos etc).

that is annoying

> you also have censorship rights over others.

umm, every mailing list has that.  Google Groups is no different.

> even if you add users to the list they cannot access
> the archive through standard http or https,

you're conflating things here.  of course access is through "standard
http or https" -- that's the transport protocol that everyone has to
implement according to the standard in order to work.  Goole is not
different here.

> they need to allow google to execute javascript code on their
> machine.

complaining that the web interface executes JS is a bit luddite-ish.

> (so wget does not work).

every message has a link to the raw message you can use to fetch the
mail directly.

perm link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ

which has a link to the raw message:
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ

it's actually nicer than mailmain (i.e. sourceware) as it doesn't do all
the trivial content mangling (s/@/ at/g).  it's not like e-mail scrapers
today can't reverse that easily.

> and the url through which you visit a post is not a
> reliable permanent link so linking to posts is hard.

every post has a "link" option to get a perm link.  needing the location
in the URL bar be the perm link is a weak (dumb imo) requirement.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> > they need to allow google to execute javascript code on their
> > machine.
> 
> complaining that the web interface executes JS is a bit luddite-ish.

If the JS in question is nonfree it's immediately relevant to 
appropriateness for any GNU project use.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Alexandre Oliva]

Mike,

On Feb 15, 2016, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 15 Feb 2016 16:18, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> they need to allow google to execute javascript code on their
>> machine.

> complaining that the web interface executes JS is a bit luddite-ish.

See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

Do you see anytying familiar in the part of the URL above between 'www.'
and '.org/'? ;-)

Yeah, the GNU that denounces the Javascript trap is the same GNU that
started and encompasses all the Free Software development communities
you addressed in your email, and then some.


Now, should we be surprised that at least *some* of the GNU contributors
take the positions of the political and social movement that motivated
it in earnest?

Should we then proceed to exclude them from technical discussions by
choosing communication media that we can't use without betraying those
very positions?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]

On 15 Feb 2016 17:17, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2016, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 15 Feb 2016 16:18, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >> they need to allow google to execute javascript code on their
> >> machine.
> 
> > complaining that the web interface executes JS is a bit luddite-ish.
> 
> See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
> 
> Do you see anytying familiar in the part of the URL above between 'www.'
> and '.org/'? ;-)
> 
> Yeah, the GNU that denounces the Javascript trap is the same GNU that
> started and encompasses all the Free Software development communities
> you addressed in your email, and then some.

i'm already familiar with these arguments/documents.  they aren't news to me.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Szabolcs Nagy]

On 15/02/16 17:36, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2016 16:18, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> you as a group admin can do that, others cannot join
>> without creating a account at google (which requires
>> the acceptance of the google tos etc).
> 
> that is annoying

i didn't know about list+subscribe@googlegroups.com
(thanks Florian and Joseph)

>> you also have censorship rights over others.
> 
> umm, every mailing list has that.  Google Groups is no different.

it's better if admin right is at some discussion related
organization. (e.g. in case anything happens to H.J.Lu)

>> even if you add users to the list they cannot access
>> the archive through standard http or https,
> 
> you're conflating things here.  of course access is through "standard
> http or https" -- that's the transport protocol that everyone has to
> implement according to the standard in order to work.  Goole is not
> different here.

the contents cannot be accessed with an http or https client.
(unless you know the magic urls below)

>> they need to allow google to execute javascript code on their
>> machine.
> 
> complaining that the web interface executes JS is a bit luddite-ish.

some of us tend to browse the web from terminal (== no js).

>> (so wget does not work).
> 
> every message has a link to the raw message you can use to fetch the
> mail directly.
> 
> perm link:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ

redirects me to
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ

> which has a link to the raw message:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ

i didn't know about this raw url, it seems there is
https://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ
too, so if i always change the urls i can browse the archive.
(this is not discoverable without js as far as i can see)

with the +subscribe@ and the raw msg options i'm no longer
against google groups hosting public discussions (provided
the project documents these somewhere), i still prefer more
accessible alternatives though.

> it's actually nicer than mailmain (i.e. sourceware) as it doesn't do all
> the trivial content mangling (s/@/ at/g).  it's not like e-mail scrapers
> today can't reverse that easily.
> 
>> and the url through which you visit a post is not a
>> reliable permanent link so linking to posts is hard.
> 
> every post has a "link" option to get a perm link.  needing the location
> in the URL bar be the perm link is a weak (dumb imo) requirement.
> -mike
> 

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:

> > Please don't spread false information.  Anyone can subscribe Linux-ABI
> > group and its archive is to open to everyone.  You don't need a gmail account
> > for any of those.  There are quite a few non-gmail users.  You don't have
> > to take my word for it.  I can add your email to Linux-ABI group and you
> > can check it out yourself :-).
> > 
> 
> you as a group admin can do that, others cannot join
> without creating a account at google (which requires
> the acceptance of the google tos etc).

Does mailing <group-name>+subscribe@googlegroups.com not work from an 
address without a corresponding Google account?  (It's true that 
documentation of this seems to be rather lacking, and I also dislike 
Google Groups as a platform for the other reasons stated.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Florian Weimer]

* Szabolcs Nagy:

> you as a group admin can do that, others cannot join
> without creating a account at google (which requires
> the acceptance of the google tos etc).

It should be possible to subscribe to the list by sending an empty
email message to <linux-abi+subscribe@googlegroups.com>.

At least it works for me, and I currently should not have a Google
account associated with that email address.  There are some other
Google lists where I cannot subscribe in this way.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Jose E. Marchesi]

    > +1
    >
    > Since it's GNU tools we're talking about, we'd better use a medium that
    > we've all already agreed to use, than one that a number of us objects
    > to.  I, for one, have closed my Google account several Valentine's Days
    > ago, for privacy reasons, and this makes the archives of lists hidden
    > there unusable for me.
    
    Please don't spread false information.  Anyone can subscribe Linux-ABI
    group and its archive is to open to everyone.  You don't need a gmail account
    for any of those.  There are quite a few non-gmail users.  You don't have
    to take my word for it.  I can add your email to Linux-ABI group and you
    can check it out yourself :-).

That is true.  But given the preferences expressed by so many interested
parties, would you please consider creating a gnu-gabi mailing list in
either sourceware or savannah?

For one, I would greatly appreciate it :)

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 15, 2016, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I, for one, have closed my Google account several Valentine's Days
>> ago, for privacy reasons, and this makes the archives of lists hidden
>> there unusable for me.

> Anyone can subscribe Linux-ABI group

I didn't say that was not possible, did I?

> and its archive is to open to everyone

I'm a bit surprised by that, since I recall having trouble accessing
archives of other google groups that I still happen to be in, much to my
disappointment.  Maybe it's not because of the account, whose lack
prevents me from even complaining to Google about being abusively
subscribed to lists I don't want to be in (nothing to do with the one
you proposed, mind you); it could be because I refuse to run proprietary
Javascript on my browser, or because I reject cookies and use Tor, and
so Google requires me to solve a CAPTCHA that I can't even see before it
might or might not grant me access to the archives.  Who knows?  The
important question is Why should we collective choose that over what
we're already using and that's aligned with the interests of our
community?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Mark Wielaard]

On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 13:37 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2016, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 02/11/2016 06:20 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> If we could ask overseers to setup a new group/list gnu-gabi on sourceware
> >> where binutils, gcc, gdb, glibc and other interested parties could join
> >> to maintain these extensions and ask for clarifications that would be
> >> wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
> >> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
> >> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.
> 
> > +1
> 
> +1

Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist.
We could use that to discuss how to evolve/document the relevant GNU
extensions and then ask for a repository and web page later.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

mark wrote:

> [...]
>> [...]
>> >> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.
>> > +1
>> +1
>
> Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]

Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.

[1] gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
[2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/

- FChE

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Jose E. Marchesi]

    > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]
    
    Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.
    
    [1] gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
    [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/
    
The link to the "GNU GABI project web page" in
https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi is broken.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi
<jose.marchesi@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>     > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]
>
>     Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.
>
>     [1] gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
>     [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/
>
> The link to the "GNU GABI project web page" in
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi is broken.

How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list?  The project page just
points to the mailing list archive.  There is no option to subscribe
it.

-- 
H.J.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Markus Trippelsdorf]

On 2016.02.19 at 12:57 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi
> <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >     > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]
> >
> >     Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.
> >
> >     [1] gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
> >     [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/
> >
> > The link to the "GNU GABI project web page" in
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi is broken.
> 
> How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list?  The project page just
> points to the mailing list archive.  There is no option to subscribe
> it.

https://sourceware.org/lists.html#ml-requestor

-- 
Markus

Re: gnu-gabi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
<markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote:
> On 2016.02.19 at 12:57 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi
>> <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >     > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]
>> >
>> >     Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.
>> >
>> >     [1] gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
>> >     [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/
>> >
>> > The link to the "GNU GABI project web page" in
>> > https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi is broken.
>>
>> How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list?  The project page just
>> points to the mailing list archive.  There is no option to subscribe
>> it.
>
> https://sourceware.org/lists.html#ml-requestor

Doesn't work:

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<gnu-abi-subscribe@sourceware.org>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.


-- 
H.J.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Mark Wielaard]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:57:34PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list?  The project page just
> points to the mailing list archive.  There is no option to subscribe
> it.

To subscribe sent email to gnu-abi-subscribe@sourceware.org
Or use the subscribe form at https://sourceware.org/lists.html#ml-requestor

Note I set the Reply-To: gnu-gabi@sourceware.org so we don't keep
spamming all the GNU toolchain project lists. We should get at least
one representative from each GNU toolchain project on the gnu-gabi
list to make sure we have a process that makes sure we only document
abi that is actually supportable.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: gnu-gabi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:57:34PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list?  The project page just
>> points to the mailing list archive.  There is no option to subscribe
>> it.
>
> To subscribe sent email to gnu-abi-subscribe@sourceware.org
> Or use the subscribe form at https://sourceware.org/lists.html#ml-requestor

Have you tried?  It doesn't works for me.

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<gnu-abi-subscribe@sourceware.org>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Received: (qmail 45923 invoked by uid 89); 19 Feb 2016 21:51:27 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-HELO: mail-qg0-f51.google.com
Received: from mail-qg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f51.google.com)
(209.85.192.51)
 by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with
(AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 21:51:26 +0000
Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id y89so72346223qge.2
        for <gnu-abi-subscribe@sourceware.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016
13:51:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=eZC3LtZL7BXxfyIFtklb/yLCrPguGar0iu8XP/9UuyU=;
        b=se5z8Q6PBBZxlt9AGx5aQY6dZhG0ksLTMm3tPhsKq9RFsP6r9bpoR9sLJbv+BnMoAu
         M8hD6qclE47HF1x54w23yGrx7CpbZMUdXiwa+9n/Q6ZQIQRgsbGrWrd4QohsGGyZaCrz
         t53H9J4NykEZyNwNCGgn5+jhW80KC2QKFYcDmCUdsA+59OjF+u2VavrVC+QUmSeoD9S1
         0ZNiR9grsoX7cuHi2H2LLefY1mgki7dI/aQMC/mReqEIfJVU24CXXLXvUSLkF/jqLlQS
         vmK+uFMr1S4L4L8aFoTZmxQUhEv4U7dGVyc9HduLZsTygt8/EyS4Sgzp8O5w4RuihkXK
         FxIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=eZC3LtZL7BXxfyIFtklb/yLCrPguGar0iu8XP/9UuyU=;
        b=HwhJg/b727DM0KPtKbwcgRM8tlamj8wWLwxxc6fV9Z4bUdSKn/RCaciMaCar4f6FFl
         wr+vNsi8FP+2MbubOnpjrVvLIlwlbPPoTi23BP/vKzqJgkJ/WivaY4Pwc7wOhpOp7WmG
         W2UmxFNCX7YGEzPx3XVxXDygarKYGtxCM7VO2l0VOka1ryex0K/w1ElOeqO7QBVD3ljH
         07qSDt5Aaije9ZuuxOmkPOAOUdGNmmNB66AQ6MTCl6pI0WpHM2EWp+NJ/4xBTJ2APOZ5
         3GXZrHo89Hcl0OtS2iKkFDl0uN4+om+YSkbE/UOMfHp1sX2vU8K6FyWUQJd1avB3BRo4
         9wFA==
X-Gm-Message-State:
AG10YOSm8MzPqGT7Hia24HueQfxd0gM5xkxsrG+f6o1b7AVRiZxgGE155J9XNhmo8PT9XiJyJv3Ur0GuNQ8wkQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.19.52 with SMTP id 49mr19058993qgg.103.1455918684746;
 Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.55.15.216 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:51:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOrEJoPn8uheC8zL+8Qzs+5xOFdHwF8qzJieqMeZ3i5zHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Subscribe
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: gnu-abi-subscribe@sourceware.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

-- 
H.J.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:57:34PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> How do I subscribe gnu-abi mailing list?  The project page just
>> points to the mailing list archive.  There is no option to subscribe
>> it.
>
> To subscribe sent email to gnu-abi-subscribe@sourceware.org

It's actually gnu-gabi.  Send mail to gnu-gabi-subscribe@sourceware.org.

Ian

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 15, 2016, fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:

> mark wrote:

>> [...]
>>> [...]
>>> >> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.
>>> > +1
>>> +1
>> 
>> Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]

> Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.

Thanks!

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Florian Weimer]

* Frank Ch. Eigler:

> mark wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> [...]
>>> >> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.
>>> > +1
>>> +1
>>
>> Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]
>
> Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.
>
> [1] gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
> [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/

And to subscribe, send mail to <gnu-gabi-subscribe@sourceware.org>.
Somehow, this is missing on the web page above.

Re: gnu-gabi group

[Pedro Alves]

On 02/15/2016 08:17 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Frank Ch. Eigler:

>> Done [1] [2].  If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.
>>
>> [1] gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
>> [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/
> 
> And to subscribe, send mail to <gnu-gabi-subscribe@sourceware.org>.
> Somehow, this is missing on the web page above.
> 

One can also subscribe using the form at:

  https://sourceware.org/lists.html

(I used that.)

BTW, is the intention for the mailing lists list on that page to be
fully comprehensive?  Off the top of my head, I notice that at least
the infinity@ list is missing, as well as this new list.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

Re: Linux-abi group

[Ed Maste]

On 8 February 2016 at 18:08, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> >> I was referring to program properties:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
>> >
>> > This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
>> >
>> > Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
>> > entire GNU project.
>> >
>>
>> gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
>> Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
>> like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time.  It isn't appropriate
>> for any GNU project list.

But the examples presented so far (STT_GNU_IFUNC, PT_GNU_RELRO etc.)
are relevant to GNU systems in general and are not Linux-specific.

> I find it extremely unlikely that many well-thought-out extensions would
> be appropriate for GNU systems using the Linux kernel but not for GNU
> systems using Hurd or other kernels - the only such cases would be for
> things very closely related to kernel functionality.  There is a strong
> presumption that toolchain configuration should apply to all GNU systems
> rather than being specific to GNU/Linux without good reason.

Agreed. As we've seen with the fallout from the abi_tag attribute we
need better communication between groups in the free software tool
chain world, not more fragmentation.

Re: Linux-abi group

[Joerg Sonnenberger]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:50:29AM -0500, Ed Maste via llvm-commits wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:08, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> >> >> I was referring to program properties:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
> >> >
> >> > This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
> >> >
> >> > Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
> >> > entire GNU project.
> >> >
> >>
> >> gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
> >> Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
> >> like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time.  It isn't appropriate
> >> for any GNU project list.
> 
> But the examples presented so far (STT_GNU_IFUNC, PT_GNU_RELRO etc.)
> are relevant to GNU systems in general and are not Linux-specific.

Some of them are even useful outside GNU systems. Some others choices in
recent years are at least somewhat questionable and a broader audience
in the design would likely have made the design much more useful (i.e.
the GNU hash format).

Joerg

Re: Linux-abi group

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> [2016-02-08 11:24:53 -0800]:
> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
> 
> I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
> I will propose some new extensions soon.
> 

seems to require a registered email address at google.
(and the archive does not work from any console based browser
or using direct http get tools.)

the kernel seems to have a lot of mailing lists, may be
they can handle this list too?

thanks

Re: Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
> * H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> [2016-02-08 11:24:53 -0800]:
>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>>
>> I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
>> I will propose some new extensions soon.
>>
>
> seems to require a registered email address at google.
> (and the archive does not work from any console based browser
> or using direct http get tools.)

Do you want me to add you?

> the kernel seems to have a lot of mailing lists, may be
> they can handle this list too?
>
> thanks

It is used to discuss more tool-oriented extensions than
the kernel-oriented ones, like STT_GNU_IFUNC which
has nothing to do with kernel.

-- 
H.J.