From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com>, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
x86-64-abi <x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com>,
Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:41:56 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1808231436310.7867@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <101e7bf8-0270-5b53-61f0-6b852bb8666e@redhat.com>
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> glibc 2.28 assumes that no 4-byte-aligned PT_NOTE segments contain GNU
> property notes and will search for such notes in 8-byte aligned segments
> only. The glibc changes were formally reviewed and checked for
> interoperability with BFD ld. I think we have (had) community consensus
> for them.
Not really. You had one person favoring 8byte alignment (variously
because the gABI says so, even though that's irrelevant for .gnu.note,
and/or because then int64 accesses can be used without having to write a
read_int64 macro that deals with unalignment), and the rest either
ignoring this or saying "ugh, bad idea, breaks compatibility and breaks
forward compat because not self-describing anymore". The former put in
work to implement 8byte alignment, ignoring the compat issues. Now you
actually see those issues. Everybody looses. That's what you get if
people create facts before consensus.
Ciao,
Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-23 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAMe9rOrrayKnc_cPm4SmnDnUGLbBUmOYMBTMOM8KLAHVmb=rUQ@mail.gmail.com>
2018-08-16 13:00 ` PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold (was: Re: [PATCH] Document GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_[USED|NEEDED]) Florian Weimer
2018-08-16 13:19 ` H.J. Lu
2018-08-16 13:29 ` H.J. Lu
2018-08-16 13:31 ` PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold Florian Weimer
2018-08-16 13:39 ` H.J. Lu
2018-08-16 14:01 ` Florian Weimer
2018-08-16 14:43 ` H.J. Lu
2018-08-16 14:21 ` Florian Weimer
2018-08-16 17:46 ` H.J. Lu
2018-08-16 19:16 ` Mark Wielaard
2018-08-16 19:36 ` H.J. Lu
2018-08-17 6:04 ` Mark Wielaard
2018-08-17 6:20 ` Florian Weimer
2018-08-17 6:41 ` Mark Wielaard
2018-08-17 15:10 ` H.J. Lu
2018-08-17 21:05 ` Mark Wielaard
2018-08-21 23:02 ` Cary Coutant
2018-08-22 9:39 ` Florian Weimer
2018-08-22 10:08 ` Mark Wielaard
2018-08-22 23:36 ` Cary Coutant
2018-08-24 18:39 ` Florian Weimer
2018-08-23 14:41 ` Michael Matz [this message]
2018-08-23 14:43 ` Florian Weimer
2018-08-17 15:13 ` H.J. Lu
2018-09-19 19:22 ` Florian Weimer
2018-09-21 12:55 ` Michael Matz
2018-09-21 13:04 ` Florian Weimer
2018-09-26 17:39 ` Cary Coutant
2018-09-26 18:36 ` H.J. Lu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/involved.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LSU.2.21.1808231436310.7867@wotan.suse.de \
--to=matz@suse.de \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=ccoutant@gmail.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).