Linux-abi group

[H.J. Lu via llvm-commits]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
<hegdesmailbox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
>> <hegdesmailbox at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
>> you can use to implement them.  For example:
>>
>>
>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html
>>
>> lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
>> But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
>> extensions before they get implemented.
>
>
> How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular
> product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product.
> Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not
> enforce implementation details.
>
>

That is exactly what Linux ABI group tries to address.  Please see
the Linux gABI extension draft at

https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI

It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa-
tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools.


-- 
H.J.