This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC 2.0] Implementing hwcap2
- From: Steven Munroe <munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, "Ryan S. Arnold" <rsa at us dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:47:58 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC 2.0] Implementing hwcap2
- References: <20130328 dot 173934 dot 1310725546115298719 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <201303281931 dot 43830 dot vapier at gentoo dot org> <20130328234033 dot 9197A2C0A7 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130328 dot 201048 dot 1654197573467873843 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <20130408220507 dot 5699D2C088 at topped-with-meat dot com> <5163FA57 dot 5020506 at twiddle dot net>
- Reply-to: munroesj at us dot ibm dot com
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 06:24 -0500, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-04-08 17:05, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > The calling convention for IFUNC resolvers is machine-specific.
> > Thus, it's up to each machine maintainer to decide what it should be
> > for his machine. Given how rare IFUNC use still is, I'd say it's
> > also up to each machine maintainer to decide whether or not an
> > incompatible change to the convention is acceptable at this stage.
>
> While I suppose that's a valid position, my position is that merely
> adding a second 32-bit argument to the ifunc resolver maintains
> compatability across all machines, and that is good for everyone.
>
I agree. there exist several cases where we pass more parameters (main()
and the auxv for example) then most programs use or care about. It is a
simple solution that works for every one and does not harm to any
application that only uses the initial parameter set.