[PATCH] D143115: [lld][RISCV] Introduce handling for R_RISCV_PLT32 relocation

[Jessica Clarke via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jrtc27 added a comment.

In D143115#4149693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143115#4149693>, @asb wrote:

> @kito-cheng @jrtc27: Can I just confirm the ABI development process? We obviously went through a whole ratification exercise before, but how does it now work for these kind of additions? I'm mainly concerned about merging support for something that's added to the psABI doc, but then having to change it later if it's viewed as not "final". I guess this shouldn't happen, as a consequence of the PR merging policy <https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/blob/master/policy.md> but it's still a bit unclear how it intersects with any future ratification process that might be requested by RISC-V International.
>
> Though FWIW, I think the path of getting broad consensus on the proposal and then considering it 'done' is just fine - I'm not sure extra layers of sign-off would be helpful for incremental improvements like this. And in case I missed a hidden layer of bureaucracy, I _think_ the x86_64 psABI is evolved in a similar way.

My view is the ratification lifecycle is incompatible with toolchain software development, especially ABIs. We’ve mostly been ignoring it other than to get the spec approved, but a system where the ABI says one thing in one draft and something incompatible in a later draft renders the document useless for most of the year. I guess the exception would be an ABI that specifically refers to a draft extension and thus of course will evolve with the extension.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D143115/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D143115