From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16694 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2012 13:21:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 16676 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2012 13:21:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cheddar.halon.org.uk (HELO cheddar.halon.org.uk) (217.10.144.130) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:21:07 +0000 Received: from bsmtp by cheddar.halon.org.uk with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SzSfe-0007R6-5z; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:21:02 +0100 Received: from stemci01 by e102122-lin with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SzSeq-00035R-Ii; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:20:12 +0100 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:21:00 -0000 From: Steve McIntyre To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Roland McGrath , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ARM hard-float ABI: add ldconfig flag value Message-ID: <20120809132012.GT24537@linaro.org> References: <20120802172843.AC5092C0DF@topped-with-meat.com> <20120802174900.GH24537@linaro.org> <20120802175430.CF1652C0DF@topped-with-meat.com> <20120802181352.GJ24537@linaro.org> <20120802182602.77E082C0A8@topped-with-meat.com> <20120803164526.GO24537@linaro.org> <20120808134012.GA25789@linaro.org> <20120809002913.GA2131@einval.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-attached: unknown User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:10:28AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> >Could you please point to a public statement from the ARM ABI maintainers >> >about the reservation of these values for the next ABI revision, and the >> >semantics being assigned to them? >> >> There isn't one *yet*, we're waiting on your review before going >> ahead. If you're happy with the approach here then we'll make that >> happen ASAP. > >The approach of using ELF header flags and testing them in this way is >fine; as Roland notes some coding style fixes are needed in the patch >(e.g. spaces before the open parenthesis when calling a function-like >macro). OK, easily fixed. :-) >I just think there should be an actual statement of the ABI before >the patch goes in. (Such a statement would include the values, the >types of ELF files for which they may be used (I guess ET_EXEC and >EY_DYN but not ET_REL) and the semantics of each value.) ACK. I've forwarded that onto the ABI folks in ARM and they're working on it. Actually formally publishing a new version of the ABI spec will likely take a few weeks to go through the system, but hoping to get some agreed wording and a commitment to publish out long before then. Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs