Linux-abi group

[Suprateeka R Hegde via cfe-commits]

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 <joseph at 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.
>
>