This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: Add PT_GNU_PROPERTY to cover .note.gnu.property section


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:58:30PM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
> > > I would strongly recommended to try harder to get consensus here.  I do
> > > not want to be a in a situation were we revise ABI again two years from
> > > now.
> >
> > That is my hope.  PT_GNU_PROPERTY is our consensus so far.
> 
> As you might expect, I support this new program header. Ideally, I'd
> have liked to replace the input SHT_NOTE sections with
> SHT_GNU_PROPERTY sections and dispense with all the note section
> overhead, but I'll take this as a compromise.

Why can't we switch to SHT_GNU_PROPERTY? My fear with combining
PT_GNU_PROPERTY with SHT_NOTE is that it will be even more confusing
for tools. You will get some allocated SHT_NOTEs in a PT_NOTE segment
and others in this new PT_GNU_PROPERTY segment (or worse, you get
multiple segments with different types covering the same ranges).

Also I thought there was still a question whether any or all
newly proposed property features and flags are actually needed
as loadable segments. There is a clear overlap with the GNU
Attributes (which are non-loadable). I would like to see consensus
first on the new property format/flags and which are and which
aren't needed as loadable properties at runtime.

Cheers,

Mark


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]