From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C705EC433DF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:59:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C00C206F8 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:59:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7C00C206F8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=pbcl.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49dN7K3R0BzDqnk for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:59:57 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=pbcl.net (client-ip=2a01:4f8:c2c:5794::1; helo=pbcl.net; envelope-from=pb@pbcl.net; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=pbcl.net Received: from pbcl.net (pbcl.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:5794::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49dMmz2hxWzDqhC for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:44:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pb by pbcl.net with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jgzWb-00005c-OI; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 01:43:53 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 01:43:53 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility Message-ID: <20200604234353.GC28641@pbcl.net> References: <20200602142337.GS25173@kitsune.suse.cz> <3aeb6dfe-ae23-42f9-ac23-16be6b54a850@www.fastmail.com> <20200604171232.GG31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200604171844.GO1079@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200604173312.GI31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200604215511.GB28641@pbcl.net> <20200604230639.GL31009@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200604230639.GL31009@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, eery@paperfox.es, Daniel Kolesa , Will Springer , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 06:06:39PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 11:55:11PM +0200, Phil Blundell wrote: > > 1a. Define your own subset of ELFv2 which is interworkable with the full > > ABI at the function call interface but doesn't make all the same > > guarantees about binary compatibility. That would mean that a binary > > built with your toolchain and conforming to the subset ABI would run on > > any system that implements the full ELFv2 ABI, but the opposite is not > > necessarily true. > > And you can only use shared objects also built for that subset ABI. If > you use some binary distribution, then it will also have to be built for > that subset, practically anyway. Right, absolutely. Any place that I wrote "binary", I meant to include both DSOs and executables. > This is very similar to soft-float targets. Yes, agreed. > There is more process involved than most open source people are > comfortable with :-/ Yes, that's unfortunate but it goes with the territory. I think we have to accept that any attempt to define a single ABI where there are multiple interests involved will be a significant effort involving thousands of person-hours of work, much discussion, and a certain amount of politics and compromise. Inevitably, some people/organisations at the margins will decide that the game isn't worth the candle. If they don't participate in the general ABI effort then they can hardly complain about the results, but equally there is nothing to stop these folks from defining their own ABIs. If they can attain a critical mass to support such a variant ABI then, as far as I'm concerned, that's a fine thing and all power to them. p.