From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3749 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Preparing to release 0.9.12 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:27:39 -0400 Message-ID: <20130725172739.GL4284@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130724200221.GA4256@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130725104459.3c29fc34@vostro> <20130725161654.GH4284@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130725195955.25cbc101@vostro> <20130725171806.GK4284@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374773271 20620 80.91.229.3 (25 Jul 2013 17:27:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:27:51 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3753-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jul 25 19:27:53 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V2PKT-0004sd-9r for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:27:53 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 12226 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jul 2013 17:27:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 12210 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2013 17:27:52 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130725171806.GK4284@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3749 Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:18:06PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > I should add some documentation on this on the wiki. Defining what is > part of "the ABI" is tricky. For example, you could say code built for > armv5 is a different ABI from code built for armv4, since it's using > instructions that aren't available on armv4. However, the key reason I > don't consider those "different ABIs" is that, as long as the cpu > you're running on supports all the instructions used in the main > program and all libraries, you can use a mix of armv4 and armv5 built > modules with no restrictions. > [...] > Basically, configurations A and B are different archs or subarchs if > you can't link code built with configuration A to code built with > configuration B. For what it's worth, this agrees with the outcome of Debian's discussion on adding the armhf port: The eventual conclusion was that port names in Debian should encode incompatible ABIs, not compatible variations within an ABI (such as CPU optimisations, referred to as 'flavours'). The default flavour for a port can change over time as older CPUs become obsolete. (e.g. the i386 architecture has been built for 386, 486 and 586 flavours over time). Rebuilds of a port for a new flavour within the ABI are possible to gain performance improvements, but Debian itself normally provides builds to the lowest common denominator still in widespread use, maximising generality. Thus attempts to encode all the possible flavour options in the port name were unnecessary and produced long and awkward names. A better solution to the problem of recording the flavour to which a port or package is built is suitable package metadata. Source: http://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort Rich