From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 378 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2014 17:10:07 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 367 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jan 2014 17:10:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: cheddar.halon.org.uk Received: from cheddar.halon.org.uk (HELO cheddar.halon.org.uk) (217.10.144.130) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:10:05 +0000 Received: from bsmtp by cheddar.halon.org.uk with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W5IMM-0000uv-An; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:10:02 +0000 Received: from stemci01 by e102122-lin.cambridge.arm.com with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W5ILZ-0007Mu-SD; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:09:13 +0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:10:00 -0000 From: Steve McIntyre To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: Andrew Pinski , "libc-ports@sourceware.org" , Marcus Shawcroft , "Ryan S. Arnold" Subject: Re: Policy: Require new dynamic loader names for entirely new ABIs? Message-ID: <20140120170904.GF21103@linaro.org> References: <52CDD48A.80009@redhat.com> <20140113181623.GW8293@linaro.org> <52DD4BB8.1090901@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52DD4BB8.1090901@redhat.com> X-attached: none User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:15:52AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >On 01/17/2014 06:04 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> I withdraw my objection to the patch. Though I do feel this >> discussion should have been done on the GCC/glibc list in addition to >> the linaro cross distro list as not every one knows about that list. > >I feel your pain here. Yes, this could have worked much better. Multiple people spoke about posting patches and discussing things more widely, but it fell through the cracks. :-( >I was also frustrated by lack of transparency >when it cam to agreement on ABI details for >ARM hard-float. At the time I was working for >Mentor Graphics and we had to scramble to >implement a solution. ACK. That was more painful because we left things later than we should have done in terms of defining the ABI, and various groups were already publically using the same loader name for different things. In the case of the discussion around the BE AArch64 loader, it seemed that nobody was (yet) producing anything so there wouldn't be any problems. Andrew: apologies for the hassle to you here... >I support it because changing the dynamic loader >name now is less painful than later, we have >users that need it, and a workaround. > >The only thing I can say is that we make it >policy that entirely new ABI's should always >use a unique dynamic loader name unless the >submitter can argue otherwise. > >That way in the future we never see this >problem. > >Thoughts? That would be lovely. I don't see much of a downside so long as this is understood up front for new ports/ABIs etc. - there's very little cost to it at that point. Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs