This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Linux-abi group
- From: anonymous <johnandsara2 at cox dot net>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:15:06 -0500
- Subject: Re: Linux-abi group
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: cox.net; none
- References: <CAMe9rOqPzub4Qr95JT9_U9FBtbME4Xb2ZTgqPrN-Umf70vWGbQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <87io1z2e2i dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAMe9rOqxZ6NDTc9pKJRpA--A_+moVNSZXyvZ0mkebx0X+LD=_g at mail dot gmail dot com> <87egcn2diz dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAMe9rOr6jj0ax0B=9dFpuMYCu=HJaf9a3g2-NGnvNV2ZWTqwXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1602082307130 dot 18645 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMe9rOqoABu=bD5tgeBQsQXWZmhd5CHSZuwfobg8ezoCmCHNGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <56BC61F0 dot 3010507 at gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqUbo_hFin-yf7T0S43qcY=Jn8g4R7PqrS0OGVwhx4qRw at mail dot gmail dot com> <56BCB13E dot 9020807 at gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqLjKS_rJRdFB6Tj1X_nDYeVWcsb6u3BOATXM4EcAzQ+w at mail dot gmail dot com>
H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
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 http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
The Intro on LSB says:
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
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:
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
It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa-
tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools.
Intel ABI allows abi for binary compatibility on intel machines - just
copy bins no need to target compile.
Linux ABI? linus already suggested this in even 1990's releases:
warning: do not share your kernel headers with applications, they might
abuse it and anyway software relying on it would break soon (be a waste
of time) when new releases released
i just noticed myself the BEST PROTECTION against the need of ABI: is a
kernel that has abi inside and offers fast exported features on "well
known unix interfaces" to what otherwise would make software "machine
dependant, fallible, and short lived"