This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFH: Annotating ELF binaries
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-help at sourceware dot org, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, devel at lists dot fedoraproject dot org
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:30:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFH: Annotating ELF binaries
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <CAKOQZ8wY26hqCkcaigLp2rYScxJzJbdJk2z64kmSkUPkicx7vQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/05/2016 12:57 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Nick Clifton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
We (the tools team at Red Hat) are working on a project to add
annotations to ELF binaries, so that we can answer various questions
about them. We have set up a wiki page about the project here:
We would very much like this to be something more than just an
internal project, and so we are reaching out to you for your opinions,
suggestions and advice. If you are interested in being able answer
questions such as 'how was this function compiled ?' or 'is this
library compatible with this application ?' then please take a minute
to have a look at the proposal.
Wearing my Go hat, I observe that you are mixing together general
properties ("Which (architecture specific) ABI variant is in use in
object X?") with language-specific properties ("agree upon the format
of long double?"). I encourage a clear separation of those two
different kinds of notes.
I'm not sure how to draw the line. I consider the size and format of
“long double” very much an ABI matter.
The psABI uses C types throughout, although it is used for much more
than just C . There is no language-independent name I know of for the
floating point type larger than the type which resembles IEEE double
precision floats. But I would expect that Ada's definition of
Long_Long_Float would have to be adjusted to align with ABI changes in