On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde <hegdesmail...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde >> <hegdesmail...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> H.J, >>> >>> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. >>> This >>> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be >>> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml >>> >>> The Intro on LSB says: >>> >>> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html >>> >>> And thats what this proposal is intended for. >>> >>> And we can use the LSB mailing list >>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all >>> discussions. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >> >> LSB lists extensions which have been implemented. But it isn't a spec >> you can use to implement them. For example: >> >> >> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html >> >> lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO. >> But it gives no details. Linux ABI group is the place where we propose >> extensions before they get implemented. > > > How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular > product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product. > Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not > enforce implementation details. > >
That is exactly what Linux ABI group tries to address. Please see the Linux gABI extension draft at https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa- tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools. -- H.J.