Policy: Require new dynamic loader names for entirely new ABIs?

[Carlos O'Donell]

Re-sending to libc-alpha. Thanks Joseph for noticing
I was sending to libc-ports.

On 01/17/2014 06:04 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I withdraw my objection to the patch.  Though I do feel this
> discussion should have been done on the GCC/glibc list in addition to
> the linaro cross distro list as not every one knows about that list.

I feel your pain here.

I was also frustrated by lack of transparency
when it cam to agreement on ABI details for
ARM hard-float. At the time I was working for
Mentor Graphics and we had to scramble to
implement a solution.

I support it because changing the dynamic loader
name now is less painful than later, we have
users that need it, and a workaround.

The only thing I can say is that we make it
policy that entirely new ABI's should always
use a unique dynamic loader name unless the
submitter can argue otherwise.

That way in the future we never see this
problem.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Carlos.