From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7837D1F4B4 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE5E386EC47; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:30:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5BE5E386EC47 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1602545423; bh=i4oTx684kLAlMn1wGNA8ZQH+ahoAU0JMMaf9cjKFcfE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=NDc/z76CSP8roiXiEfYvSAylxmV+86Aa033WJs+zB0CsZxaGIss8xReovu+iG7y// BDDAg8Ncc+YZbqUKm003SSt3oU9SH1SLw4GvdF+XsmWZ1IW4rTqjtoPe1fFhAKcNcT fyvuZDbT2uNK3EVJ3O5jSBEVDZtPvkWtd9uEhhz0= Received: from mail-ot1-x342.google.com (mail-ot1-x342.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::342]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 110903858D35 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:30:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 110903858D35 Received: by mail-ot1-x342.google.com with SMTP id m11so17340115otk.13 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:30:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i4oTx684kLAlMn1wGNA8ZQH+ahoAU0JMMaf9cjKFcfE=; b=lMS3YsHZBYhkcX/uXfiJeAQHVeV3YsIuRsxbYBZryFHSvl3F2yAaFi+lnYlY++rXeT yAMqGnZHe85veazOs4hnxkJ4a7wF5FsHd8N5Uh1glLId2RQAgKfi9HjZIuElUDhd5Qke Hbo7D3eCF2qS5aVHEbP9rizb+3S4ziNV/h1uCax9Zg1xRAHXYgDIXGErD/UpaWzZpCHp 37yu+BnVTAqF10HWhgSLOyuuPB6OqCuFBdbyu9LoLYM3OjNTHK10dBnLLGoAoAiio/Bm pin87i0VqY4g0IEMEeisYTzRJ+CJmpMwpzmXKJe4WssnlfDZEM5uuj+kf8sfZPj8qx1l He5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IaN/aTKd+V4n/QJpEOI7BcvfpsLh4rgNl0dcBH4cKRlxzg1DP OGxfFedijtbcC+JKNziMe5PI3rXarmxEn7lTBFTYKGihbFw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHTgUBvJw/y6FVw73lQ6QaSyLuVxhG3QzrATUNPiyQtizHCZ6KWHpRlTLa/0+aM+2c0N2/dyOw68AoDyUBsHs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:3081:: with SMTP id f1mr11538301ots.269.1602545420404; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201010132155.3340815-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:29:44 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Support GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_V[234] marker [BZ #26717] To: Joseph Myers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" Reply-To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: GNU C Library Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:13 PM Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha wrote: > > > > I'd like to see more information in the proposed glibc commit message > > > about the circumstances in which this setting does or does not appear in a > > > generated binary, as that's key information for reviewing whether or when > > > it's appropriate for glibc to check this information at all. > > > > > > * Does it appear as a result of explicit options instructing tools to put > > > those markers in the generated binaries? If so, are those options options > > > to the compiler, linker, assembler or some combination of those? > > > > The marker must be added by programmers explicitly. Currently there > > are 2 ways to add it: > > > > 1. Add the marker in the linker input as this patch does. > > 2. Pass -z x86-64-v[234] to the linker. > > Thanks for the explanation. When you next revise this patch, please > include such an explanation in the proposed commit message. > I updated my patch: https://gitlab.com/x86-glibc/glibc/-/commit/94a961963648dbc4971027184d2bc14d4be41ab1 with The marker must be added by programmers explicitly in one of 2 ways: 1. Add the marker in the linker inputs as this patch does. 2. Pass -z x86-64-v[234] to the linker. Thanks. -- H.J.