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 <jos...@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.
