From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 104138 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2018 06:59:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 102803 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jun 2018 06:59:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=upgrades X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] libc-abis: Define ABSOLUTE ABI [BZ #19818][BZ #23307] To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Alan Modra References: <87sh5a38tz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> From: Florian Weimer Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 06:59:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00872.txt.bz2 On 06/28/2018 12:07 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >> Is this really necessary? It essentially precludes backporting the >> fixes. > Thank you for your input. Of course bumping up the ABI version is not > itself required for the change to work, and all existing working binaries > will continue to. > > Technically it does not preclude backporting either, although of course > it is limited by the previous ABI bump, which is (in the reverse order by > version/date): Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to do here. Will the EI_ABIVERSION in created binaries increase if the programmer simply upgrades binutils? Or will this happen only when particular features are used? Thanks, Florian