[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:40:23 +0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
To: Daniel Kolesa <daniel@...aforge.org>
CC: <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, <eery@...erfox.es>,
<musl@...ts.openwall.com>, Will Springer <skirmisher@...tonmail.com>, Palmer
Dabbelt via binutils <binutils@...rceware.org>, via libc-dev
<libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Daniel Kolesa wrote:
> not be limited to being just userspace under ppc64le, but should be
> runnable on a native kernel as well, which should not be limited to any
> particular baseline other than just PowerPC.
This is a fairly unusual approach to bringing up a new ABI. Since new
ABIs are more likely to be used on new systems rather than switching ABI
on an existing installation, and since it can take quite some time for all
the software support for a new ABI to become widely available in
distributions, people developing new ABIs are likely to think about what
new systems are going to be relevant in a few years' time when working out
the minimum hardware requirements for the new ABI. (The POWER8 minimum
for powerpc64le fits in with that, for example.)
> either the AIX/ELFv1 nor the ELFv2 ABIs) If we were to introduce new
> ports, what would those use? ld64.so.3 for BE/v2? ld.so.2 for LE/32-bit?
Rather than relying on numbers such as "3" or 2" in a particular place
being unique across all (architecture, ABI) pairs supported by glibc,
something more obviously specific to a particular architecture and ABI,
e.g. ld-linux-powerpc64be-elfv2.so.1, would be better.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@...esourcery.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
