From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 22156 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2020 14:53:11 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Jun 2020 14:53:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 3813 invoked by uid 550); 2 Jun 2020 14:53:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 3782 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2020 14:53:09 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=octaforge.org; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=YwgnsG0EPjkwAlBojTwB2vGpwgVB IAlNNBLYkHOfkoE=; b=U0e0xcq9dG+TN04k8RcidCbeBbxs6poaysZHhn9Hg4m9 m3L5NC8S9f0GHSScHO//xuPxJqJHiTverWjBjoipnt8h+aNgHK0mwnUgegwDBQfd 22iouJpEnq4JVVagPDlpKOfs+lnXCMpgkOvMSKVRSTx50wu4IE3QRHoCgOnczwG9 BksTLHfym4Sl0njYKysjvP5u7H4gKhKUwIyCSrl38LTFc2LndMzGQ7Cid9O1pQyi qnAF9JN4+0UCZIiEx/Y3SR00TloswHnbaubbS4idETjW6RFzcbPOYFppI+SczBrS yx3gsr1Z6DUrEnjORQRVqA8GLrEaoI3N79XhvdSBAQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=YwgnsG 0EPjkwAlBojTwB2vGpwgVBIAlNNBLYkHOfkoE=; b=zR/u/KrJ8Xb7M8BFFpY1B8 eTE0gB/BoDtwyEuTnqIqk1sfGS0GViZmrpxmqNcDXwP9hvSNLeFQ7Xu9takBXLVR FZBNRXrGX5KHquv1sQiu0cvrdH420JscE73KPhmzExQwEo2WwF1+b/wc13TrFGA1 ld2NnZs5O00ArB23EXn7Xi0y8w2q5FWBxS4a2gsGYNupmBHTia9Ay4g1tvH1a6oA bi5x6z08jq/dGXP5oUkyNTcW9AdsLPGuu1JibhBqXvZc3nT2BcbohbW7y1UCqh69 E9HXQPPLEOPGR8hCQzF9WSWnWub9nx2fb8WKepx3qz1bN85zLWYqREBe1xPEJzzA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudefjedgiedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdffrghn ihgvlhcumfholhgvshgrfdcuoegurghnihgvlhesohgtthgrfhhorhhgvgdrohhrgheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepieevvddvjeehiedtvdelgfeuiefhgfetvdeuhfffteehuddu fffgudfhfffhleefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepuggrnhhivghlsehotghtrghfohhrghgvrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-519-g0f677ba-fm-20200601.001-g0f677ba6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <2047231.C4sosBPzcN@sheen> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:52:34 +0200 From: "Daniel Kolesa" To: "Joseph Myers" Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, eery@paperfox.es, musl@lists.openwall.com, "Will Springer" , "Palmer Dabbelt via binutils" , "via libc-dev" , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [musl] Re: ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 15:40, Joseph Myers wrote: > 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.) In this case the whole point is targeting existing hardware that we already have. It also aims to largely utilize things that are already present in all parts of the toolchain, otherwise it's a lot of effort with questionable benefit and artificially limits the baseline for no good reason. > > > 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. Yes, agreed on that - probably ld-linux-powerpc64-elfv2.so.1, to match existing conventions (powerpc64 implicitly refers to BE in target triples, etc). It's just inconsistent with the existing ports, but I guess the reason in those is legacy in the first place, so not much point in worrying about that. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com > Daniel