From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2879 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2014 16:15:58 -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 2869 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jan 2014 16:15:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:15:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0KGFr5B022792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:15:53 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.42] (ovpn-113-42.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.42]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0KGFqMf016860; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:15:52 -0500 Message-ID: <52DD4BB8.1090901@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:15:00 -0000 From: "Carlos O'Donell" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Pinski , Steve McIntyre CC: "libc-ports@sourceware.org" , Marcus Shawcroft , "Ryan S. Arnold" Subject: Policy: Require new dynamic loader names for entirely new ABIs? References: <52CDD48A.80009@redhat.com> <20140113181623.GW8293@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 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. 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. 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? Cheers, Carlos.