This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc 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: gnu-gabi group (Was: Re: Linux-abi group)

On 11-Feb-2016 09:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
<> wrote:
On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
<> wrote:


I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists.
new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
put under LSB

The Intro on LSB says:

And thats what this proposal is intended for.

And we can use the LSB mailing list for all

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:

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

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

(I suddenly see the subject changed to gnu-gabi from linux-abi. If I missed any e-mail in the transition, my apologies.)

Why should it re-describe or repeat what already exists in LSB. For instance, the Exception Handling Framework?

I understand that the forum (an exclusive gABI discussion group) is not there in LSB. That matches with what you have created. But the resulting standards document is already there in LSB.

Am I missing anything very obvious?

On 11-Feb-2016 10:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
I think that none of the ABI extensions in question are anything to do
with Linux, the kernel.  Rather, they are ABI extensions for userspace in
the GNU system, which apply the same under multiple kernels (but some of
them may well not apply to Android systems using the Linux kernel, for
example, if the Bionic C library and dynamic linker lack the relevant
features).  Thus it would be more appropriate for a mailing list to be
hosted on sourceware or Savannah, and for any resulting documents to refer
to GNU, not to Linux.

These points look very logical. Even I would like to agree to it, but after clearing some of the conflicting points I have.

1. The LinuxFoundation.Org and hence the "Linux" Standard Base has been created for "Linux, the platform" and not "Linux, the kernel". Am I right? If I am right, why not make ourse;ves part of the foundation and hence standards? Its one big central place.

2. As I know, and also as H.J. mentioned, some of the extensions may involve the kernel eventually. Those may not be immediately under discussion in this thread. Even I have a couple of things (regarding non-volatile memory or special memory area) and it may involves kernel. But these may not be yet mature for a wider-audience discussion. But targeted for "Linux, the platform".

On 11-Feb-2016 11:50 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
Having a local gnu-gabi group on would be better IMHO.

The x32, x86-64, IA-64, IA-32, SYS-V gABI, are all on google groups. Am I right? If I am right, then this Linux-ABI also looks good uder google groups I think. But this can be anything. Not of a major concern I believe.

Based on my understanding, to summarize: Discussions or groups can be anywhere. But the resulting standards/documents should be part of LSB. Is there any conflict?


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